Moore v. State
520 S.W.3d 906
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant pled guilty to felony DWI (multiple prior DWI convictions); BAC .27. He pled not true to a deadly-weapon allegation and submitted to a bench punishment hearing.
- Incident: at night on a service road at a red light, Appellant rear-ended Koen’s BMW, which pushed that BMW into a white SUV and then that white SUV into the intersection; Koen and her daughter suffered minor injuries and the BMW was totaled.
- Trial court found Appellant’s SUV was a deadly weapon used in the felony DWI; the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed, deleting the deadly-weapon finding for lack of evidence.
- State sought review arguing the court of appeals failed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence; the Texas Supreme Court agreed and reinstated the deadly-weapon finding.
- Central factual gaps: no direct evidence of Appellant’s speed, braking, or precise placement/amount of cross-traffic; only one eyewitness (Koen) testified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an automobile used in felony DWI can be a "deadly weapon" under Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(17)(B) given these facts | SUV’s use (driving intoxicated, rear-ending a car at a red light, causing a chain collision that pushed another vehicle into an intersection) was a manner capable of causing death/serious bodily injury; reasonable inferences support actual danger | Collision caused only minor injuries; evidence does not show actual danger of death or serious bodily injury — danger was merely hypothetical and gaps preclude inferring reckless/dangerous driving | Held: The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the deadly-weapon finding — a rational factfinder could infer dangerous use capable of causing death/serious bodily injury given intoxication and the chain reaction into an intersection. |
| Whether the court of appeals erred by focusing on absences in the record rather than reasonable inferences | State: courts may infer dangerous manner from circumstances (high BAC, impact pushing a vehicle into an intersection where cross-traffic had right-of-way) | Moore: Court of Appeals properly required evidence of actual danger beyond speculation and reasonably concluded the State failed its burden | Held: Majority sided with State — reasonable inferences from the recorded facts (BAC, chain collision, intersection exposure) supported deadly-weapon finding; dissent disagreed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte McKithan, 838 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (motor vehicle may be a deadly weapon by manner of use)
- Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (no intent to use vehicle as weapon required; capability suffices)
- Walker v. State, 897 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (automobile can be deadly weapon in involuntary manslaughter without intent)
- Mann v. State, 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (near-collision creating real danger supports deadly-weapon finding even absent injury)
- Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (consider relevant time period; absence of erratic post-incident driving undermined deadly-weapon finding)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (erratic/high-risk driving with some traffic present supported deadly-weapon finding)
- Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (analysis splits into manner of use and capability; speeding and failure to control supported deadly-weapon finding)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (single lane crossing with few cars insufficient to show actual danger)
- Tucker v. State, 274 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (manner of use capable of causing death/serious bodily injury suffices)
- McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (no requirement of intent to cause death/serious bodily injury)
- Pruett v. State, 510 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (capability of implement to cause death/serious injury not negated by quick mitigation of harm)