Hawkins, Romelle Monte v. State, PD-0084-15

On April 8, 2012, during an altercation outside a bar, Romelle Hawkins fired a revolver from the front passenger seat of a vehicle; three shots were fired and Katherine (the complainant) was killed by the third shot. Fallon Kiser testified she saw Hawkins aim at Katherine and heard him say, “What the fuck happened,” while shaking after the shooting.
Hawkins was indicted for murder; at trial the jury acquitted him of murder but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and assessed punishment at 23 years' imprisonment.
Defense requested jury instructions on two lesser-included offenses: manslaughter (granted) and criminally negligent homicide (denied by the trial court).
On appeal, Hawkins argued the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the criminally negligent homicide instruction because the record contained some evidence (including Hawkins’s post-shot statement and demeanor) that he failed to perceive the risk of his conduct.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the two-step Cavazos/Guzman test: it agreed criminally negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense but held the evidence did not permit a rational finding that Hawkins failed to perceive the risk (i.e., criminal negligence) rather than was aware of and disregarded it (recklessness/manslaughter).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hawkins)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder	The record contained some evidence (Hawkins’s shaken reaction and utterance after the shooting, lack of animosity with victim, lighting/vision issues) that he failed to perceive the risk, making negligent homicide a rational alternative	The evidence (three shots with pauses, one shot hitting another person, Fallon’s testimony that Hawkins aimed at Katherine) showed Hawkins perceived and disregarded the risk; no evidence he entirely failed to perceive it	Affirmed: no error — criminally negligent homicide was not a valid, rational alternative because the evidence showed awareness of the risk rather than a failure to perceive it

Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App.) (two-step test for lesser-included-offense instructions)
Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App.) (comparing elements/statutory inquiry for lesser-included offenses)
Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App.) (lesser-included-offense instruction standards)
Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App.) (scintilla/valid-rational-alternative discussion)
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explaining criminal negligence as failure to perceive risk)
Trujillo v. State, 227 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (distinguishing recklessness from criminal negligence)
Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App.) (need for evidence directly germane to lesser offense)
Forest v. State, 989 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. Crim. App.) (scintilla standard for lesser-included offenses)
Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. Crim. App.) (context can negate a defendant’s claimed lack of intent)
Saunders v. State, 840 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. Crim. App.) (negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense of murder)