MacK McKinley Ward v. State
05-14-00270-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 3, 2015Background
- On Dec. 16, 2012, Mack McKinley Ward entered a CVS in Dallas, concealed merchandise in a red duffel, and left the store with the stolen items.
- Store assistant manager Rick Holtwisch followed Ward and asked to see the duffel; Ward refused, turned, struck Holtwisch, grabbed him, and slammed him to the pavement.
- Holtwisch suffered fractures to his pelvis and hip (including a fracture of the femoral neck), underwent two surgeries, required pins and a plate, used mobility aids, walked with a limp at trial over a year later, and received an 18% impairment rating.
- Witnesses (a bystander and police) corroborated the assault; Ward admitted theft but denied any physical contact.
- A jury convicted Ward of aggravated robbery (finding serious bodily injury) and assessed 17 years’ imprisonment; Ward appealed raising five issues.
Issues
| Issue | Ward's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for "serious bodily injury" | Holtwisch’s injuries were not "protracted" and thus not "serious" under § 1.07(a)(46); relied on Black, Moore, Sanchez | Medical testimony and records showed protracted impairment, surgeries, permanent impairment; evidence supports serious bodily injury | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support protracted loss/impairment and serious bodily injury |
| Culpable‑mental‑state definitions in jury charge | Court failed to limit definitions of "intentionally" and "knowingly" to the relevant conduct elements, causing charge error | Application paragraph described manner/means and tied mental state to the result; no egregious harm | Affirmed: charge sufficiently limited mental states; no egregious harm |
| Inclusion of a "reasonable doubt" explanatory sentence in charge | Instruction impermissibly defined reasonable doubt | The sentence merely restated that guilt need not be proved beyond all possible doubt but must exclude reasonable doubt | Affirmed: instruction legally correct (followed O’Canas) |
| Jury instruction on good‑conduct time | Ward ineligible for good‑conduct time; informing jury was misleading and violated due process | Statutory instruction is proper; jury was told effects could not be predicted and should not consider it | Affirmed: no egregious harm or due‑process violation (followed Luquis, Atkinson) |
| Jurisdiction/docket transfer | Indictment returned by grand jury impaneled by 194th Court; trial court (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 7) lacked jurisdiction because no transfer order was executed | Filing in Criminal District Court No. 7 gave that court competent jurisdiction; local assignment rules permit cases to be filed/assigned among county courts | Affirmed: trial court had jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applying Jackson review in Texas)
- Black v. State, 637 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (two‑ to three‑month healing without loss of use not serious bodily injury)
- Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (insufficient evidence of protracted impairment or permanent disfigurement)
- Sanchez v. State, 543 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (hospitalization alone did not establish serious bodily injury)
- Ash v. State, 930 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (limiting mental‑state definitions by application paragraph)
- Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (contextual review of culpable‑mental‑state wording)
- Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (same)
- O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (permissible jury language distinguishing reasonable doubt from all possible doubt)
- Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discussion of reasonable‑doubt instructions)
- Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (good‑conduct/parole instruction not a due‑process violation)
- Atkinson v. State, 107 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (jury not presumed to consider good‑conduct time absent evidence)
- Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (case assignment among district courts)