Hunter, Jason Dean
PD-0861-20
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jun 16, 2021Background
- Appellant Jason Dean Hunter was indicted for solicitation "with intent that a capital felony be committed, to‑wit: the murder of the unborn child of [the child’s mother]" by requesting or inducing the mother to take actions to cause the unborn child’s death.
- Texas Penal Code § 19.06 excludes from the homicide chapter "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child," so the mother’s act of ending the unborn child’s life is not covered by homicide provisions.
- Solicitation (Penal Code § 15.03) requires that the actor request or induce another to engage in conduct that, under the actor’s belief about the circumstances, "would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission." An underlying criminal object is therefore required.
- The trial court quashed the indictment; the Third Court of Appeals affirmed. The State petitioned for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Chief Judge Keller (joined by other judges) issued a concurrence refusing review, reasoning the indictment fails because the mother’s termination of the pregnancy is not a crime under Texas homicide law, so there is no object felony for solicitation.
- The concurrence distinguished Baumgart v. State (2017) as a pleading‑rules case that does not alter the substantive, crime‑negating effect of § 19.06.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment charged a solicitation offense when the alleged object was the mother ending the unborn child’s life | Solicitation is valid even if the person solicited is not criminally responsible; the solicitation statute need not negate defensive matters in the indictment | § 19.06 removes the mother’s conduct from the homicide chapter, so the alleged underlying murder is not an offense and cannot be the object of solicitation | The indictment fails: because § 19.06 removes the mother’s conduct from homicide, there is no underlying felony and thus no solicitation offense |
| Whether § 19.06’s phrase “conduct charged” is overcome by the solicitation statute’s focus on the actor’s belief about the conduct | The State: "conduct charged" does not prevent solicitation liability; actor’s belief suffices | The defendant: solicitation’s element depends on conduct that would constitute a felony under the actor’s believed circumstances; if the believed actor is the mother, § 19.06 makes that conduct non‑criminal | The concurrence: § 19.06’s substantive exclusion controls; the solicitation statute’s reliance on the actor’s belief does not create an underlying felony when the believed actor is the mother |
| Whether Baumgart v. State requires the State to negate § 19.06 in the indictment | The State: Baumgart means defensive matters need not be expressly negated in the charging instrument | The defendant: Baumgart addresses pleading and proof consequences only and does not change that § 19.06 is substantively crime‑negating | The concurrence: Baumgart is limited to pleading rules; it does not convert a crime‑negating statutory exclusion into a mere affirmative defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Baumgart v. State, 512 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (addressed pleading and procedural/evidentiary treatment of defensive matters but did not alter substantive effect of crime‑negating statutes)