Dunn, Edrick, PD-1609-15

Dunn was indicted for aggravated robbery under Tex. Penal Code §29.03(a)(3)(A) for snatching a purse from a 70‑year‑old woman on Sept. 7, 2011; the allegation of aggravation rested on the victim's age and alleged bodily injury.
At trial the victim testified the defendant grabbed her purse, she fell, and later reported bruises and abrasions; she declined immediate medical care and sought medical attention the next day.
Photographs and testimony showed minor injuries (abrasions to forearm, hand, finger); witnesses offered mixed impressions about whether she limped or was otherwise impaired.
Dunn requested a jury instruction on the lesser‑included offense of theft from an elderly person; the trial court denied the request.
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the two‑step Hall/Cavazos framework: it found theft was a lesser‑included offense but concluded the evidence did not show that, if guilty, Dunn was guilty only of the lesser offense.
Dunn petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, arguing the appellate court misapplied binding precedent by failing to require the lesser‑offense instruction given the evidentiary ambiguity about bodily injury and mental state.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing lesser‑included instruction for theft from an elderly person	Dunn: evidence was equivocal on whether bodily injury occurred or was caused recklessly, so some evidence supported conviction only for the lesser theft offense	State: record shows the victim suffered bodily injury and no evidence establishes defendant was guilty only of theft; thus no instruction warranted	Court of Appeals: No error; theft is a lesser included offense but Dunn failed the second prong—no evidence that if guilty he was guilty only of theft

Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (establishes two‑step test for lesser‑included offense instructions)
Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (clarifies application of Hall two‑step analysis)
Bell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (some evidence, even if weak or contradictory, can require lesser‑offense instruction)
Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (discusses when evidence raises a fact issue for lesser offense)
Saunders v. State, 840 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (examples where circumstantial proof of culpable mental state can require lesser instruction)
Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (reviewing court must examine the entire record when assessing the second prong)