Dennis Steele v. State
490 S.W.3d 117
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 6, 2013 Dennis Steele crashed while intoxicated, was arrested for DWI, and taken to the Texas City Jail; breath tests showed BAC ~.21.
- Steele was placed in a small holding cell; video (no audio) recorded the entire booking/holding-cell events.
- Jailers Jackson and Cisneros (with Owens assisting) attempted to move Steele to a detox cell; Steele initially ignored commands, made obscene gestures, then physically resisted when officers tried to lift him.
- During the struggle Steele scratched, bit, kicked, and otherwise fought the officers; officers sustained cuts and scratches; a corporal subdued Steele with a Taser.
- A jury convicted Steele of two counts of assault on a public servant (officers Cisneros and Owens), found enhancement paragraphs true, and assessed 50 years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.
- On appeal Steele argued (1) the court erred by refusing a lesser-included instruction for resisting arrest, (2) the court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction under Penal Code §9.31(c), and (3) the State failed to prove identity of complainant E. Cisneros.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Steele) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity proof for E. Cisneros | Video, testimony of Jackson, Owens, and Cisneros identify the complaining officer as the person alleged in indictment | Testimony did not expressly identify as “E. Cisneros” or “Eric Cisneros,” so identity element not proved | Affirmed — identity sufficiently proved; any name-variance immaterial |
| Lesser-included instruction: resisting arrest | Assault on public servant requires proof of injury/recklessness; resisting arrest is not a functional subset here | Requested instruction because jury could rationally find he only resisted transport/arrest (no intent to injure) | Affirmed — resisting arrest not a valid rational alternative; no evidence he was guilty only of resisting arrest |
| Self-defense instruction under §9.31(c) (use of force to resist arrest/search) | N/A | Claimed officers used excessive force moving him; entitled to instruction that force to resist arrest/search can be justified if officer used greater force than necessary | Affirmed — §9.31(c) applies to resisting an arrest or search, not to resisting a cell transfer after arrest; statute not triggered here |
| Charge error standard / harmlessness | N/A | Trial court erred by refusing the two instructions, requiring reversal if harmful | No reversible error — court correctly refused instructions under governing law |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (variance/materiality inquiry for indictment vs. proof)
- Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250 (name in indictment not substantive element; immaterial variances)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (two-step test for lesser-included offense submission)
- Lofton v. State, 45 S.W.3d 649 (resisting arrest not a rational alternative where defendant’s resistance recklessly caused injury)
- Davey v. State, 989 S.W.2d 52 (identity proof and immaterial name variance in assault-on-public-servant context)