Garces, Ruben Montes, PD-0481-15

Ruben Garces, a Mexican truck driver testing a tractor-trailer in Texas, was convicted by a jury of two counts of criminally negligent homicide after his tractor-trailer entered an intersection and was struck by a northbound pickup, killing its driver and passenger.
Trial evidence: Garces testified he stopped (or at least slowed), looked, saw the pickup from a distance, attempted to cross and misjudged speed/distance; a passenger said Garces slowed then accelerated to make the crossing.
Trooper investigator testified visibility was good, cross-traffic had the right-of-way, and opined the semi failed to yield; skid/impact marks and photographs were admitted but no definitive speed or precise distance of the pickup at the moment Garces entered the intersection was established.
The State relied on the theory that Garces ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk when entering in a large tractor-trailer while oncoming traffic was traveling at high speed.
Garces argued the evidence was legally insufficient to prove criminal negligence (distinct from civil negligence) because the State did not prove the pickup’s speed or distance at the exact time he committed to the intersection and testimony suggested he reasonably believed he would make it.
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions; Garces sought discretionary review, arguing the appellate ruling blurred civil vs. criminal negligence and failed the Jackson/Brooks sufficiency inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garces)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for criminally negligent homicide	Evidence showed Garces entered intersection after observing oncoming traffic at high speed in a tractor-trailer, creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk; failure to perceive that risk warranted criminal punishment	Garces lacked proof the pickup’s speed/distance at the moment he entered; testimony (Garces and passenger) indicated a reasonable belief he could clear the intersection — at most civil negligence	Court of Appeals: Evidence was legally sufficient; jury could find Garces ought to have perceived the substantial risk and his failure was a gross deviation

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explains Jackson sufficiency review and that appellate courts must consider exculpatory evidence when no rational verdict could be supported)
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defines criminal negligence elements and perspective-of-actor timing rule)
Tello v. State, 180 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. Crim. App.) (criminal negligence requires more than unexplained failure to see; distinguishes civil negligence)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App.) (risk must be determined by conduct, not result; not every careless act producing death is criminal)
Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.) (illustrative hypothetical about conflicting strong evidence weighing against a rational guilty verdict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y.) (criminally negligent homicide requires a substantial and unjustifiable risk and gross deviation; mere unexplained failure to see parked car insufficient)