In re K.A.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10584
| Tex. App. | 2012

Background

  • K.A., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for retaliation and committed to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period not beyond his 19th birthday.
  • Detention officer Irby observed K.A. possessing a pencil in his room, which detainees are prohibited from having.
  • K.A. refused to relinquish the pencil when Irby demanded it, and threatened to jab anyone who tried to take it, but dropped the pencil when help was requested.
  • An original petition was filed June 2, 2011; an August 1, 2011 amendment identified Irby as the public servant involved and alleged retaliation for or on account of Irby’s public servant status.
  • During trial, the court proposed a charge mirroring the petition’s language; KA objected that the “maintaining discipline and order” phrasing was not in the statute.
  • The jury found KA delinquent and the disposition ordered commitment to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Sufficiency of retributive intent KA argues insufficient evidence of retributory intent. KA contends evidence fails to link threat to Irby’s public servant status. Evidence sufficient; retrubtory element found.
Charge error and resulting harm Charge removed required public servant element, risking defect. If error existed, it was harmless or not reversible. Charge error reversible; egregious harm; remand required.

Key Cases Cited

  • Riley v. State, 965 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (retributory element requires more than mere threat to public servant)
  • In re M.M.R., 932 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996) (threats to public servant must relate to public service)
  • Banti v. State, 289 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1956) (felony elements must be charged with statutory elements)
  • Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (due process requires proof of every offense element)
  • Sanchez v. State, 182 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005) (jury charge must set out all essential offense elements)
  • Evans v. State, 606 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (fundamental defect when jury is not required to find all elements)
  • Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (correct application paragraph may not fix missing element)
  • Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (harmlessness of missing element depends on charge structure)
  • Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (Almanza harm analysis for preserved vs. unpreserved errors)
  • Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (harm standard depends on preservation)
  • Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
  • Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Jackson standard and jury credibility duties)
  • Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (hypothetically correct charge standard for sufficiency review)
  • Miller v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (see Medina/Plata lineage on harmless/error analysis)
Read the full case