James Carl Schmidt v. State
05-15-01240-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- Officers responded to a 9-1-1 welfare check for James Carl Schmidt, who was acting "kind of strange" in a parking lot.
- Officer Freeman unholstered a Taser after observing escalating behavior; Freeman ordered Schmidt to put his hands behind his back and to kneel; Schmidt refused.
- When Freeman grabbed Schmidt’s arm to restrain him, Schmidt pulled away and made a separate movement that struck Officer Andres Spivey on the side of his head, causing a small laceration.
- A body-camera video and testimony of eyewitness officers were admitted; psychiatrist testimony later established Schmidt’s methamphetamine-related disorders, substance dependence, and antisocial personality disorder.
- Schmidt was indicted and tried for assault on a public servant; he did not testify or present witnesses and the trial court refused his requested jury instruction on involuntary conduct.
- The jury convicted Schmidt and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment; Schmidt appealed arguing the court erred by denying the involuntary-conduct instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Schmidt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on involuntary conduct | No—record lacks any evidence that the act was involuntary; voluntariness is a separate defensive issue and not raised here | The evidence (approach from behind, reflexive pulling when grabbed, Spivey’s comment on camera) supports a possible reflexive/involuntary act requiring the instruction | Affirmed: no evidentiary support for involuntary-conduct instruction, so refusal was not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two-step review for jury-charge complaints)
- Krajcovic v. State, 393 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (court must submit defensive issues raised by the evidence)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (same principle on defensive issues)
- Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (definition and scope of involuntary-act defense)
- Bundage v. State, 470 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (voluntariness instruction required only where defendant admits the act but denies criminal responsibility)
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (distinguishing mens rea from an involuntary-act defense)