In Re the STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS
392 S.W.3d 280
Tex. App.2012Background
- Relator seeks mandamus to compel trial court to submit a law-of-parties instruction under Penal Code 7.02(a)(2) and to modify the conspiracy application paragraph under 7.02(b).
- Defendant Falk is charged with capital murder in a case where co-defendant Jerry Martin killed Susan Canfield during an escape, with trial records including a disputed law-of-parties theory and a conspiracy theory of liability.
- The court refused to give a 7.02(a)(2) law-of-parties instruction, and overruled the State’s objection to the 7.02(b) application paragraph requiring anticipation of the specific manner and means of death.
- Relator filed a mandamus petition during the criminal trial; this Court suspended Rule 52 requirements and denied relief after reviewing the issues.
- The Court holds mandamus relief is inappropriate because the challenged rulings involve the trial court’s assessment of evidence (discretionary) and a question not clearly settled in law.
- The court discusses that the “manner and means” instruction and the fourth element of 7.02(b) are unsettled in Texas law, and it declines to grant mandamus to compel a specific charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing a 7.02(a)(2) law-of-parties instruction | Weeks argues sufficient evidence supported 7.02(a)(2). | Keeling found no evidence to support the instruction. | Not a ministerial duty; mandamus denied. |
| Whether the 7.02(b) application paragraph requiring anticipation of the specific manner and means is proper | Relator contends manner/means must be proven under 7.02(b). | Respondent crafted charge to fit indictment and evidence; no clear error shown. | Not well-settled; mandamus relief denied. |
| Whether the Court has mandamus jurisdiction to address disputed trial-court determinations in a capital-murder case | Relator seeks corrective mandamus for trial-court acts. | Court has jurisdiction to correct clearly erroneous ministerial acts; otherwise discretionary. | Mandamus jurisdiction acknowledged but relief denied on these issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (mandamus can lie to compel a trial court to rule a certain way on clear, undisputable law)
- State ex rel. Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (clear-right and ministerial act concept; need certainty in duty)
- Brad v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Not cited in opinion text (Not specified) (not applicable)
- Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (instruction on law must apply to the facts; charging errors)
- Sanchez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (unanimity on essential elements; modes/means not always required)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unanimity on gravamen; not on manner/means)
- Davis v. State, 276 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (conspiracy liability to anticipate murder in furtherance of robbery)
- Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (conviction of capital murder as a party when murder should have been anticipated)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 179 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (charge discretion; pattern jury charges guidance)