Nava, Andres Maldonado
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1839
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Nava and Mendez were indicted for felony murder and organized criminal activity; sentences were lengthy for both.
- The State used two theories of party liability: intent to promote or assist and conspiracy; abstract instructions followed by application paragraphs referenced both theories for felony murder and lesser-included offenses.
- The incident involved an undercover police operation; a shooting occurred during a theft-related confrontation, resulting in two deaths.
- The jury was instructed on both party-liability theories; the application paragraphs used the phrase ‘the offense’ in a way appellants claimed was ambiguous.
- On appeal, defendants argued egregious harm from the instruction ambiguity and that a portion of the voir dire record was missing; the appellate court abated to hear preservation questions.
- A bench-record loss occurred for defense challenges for cause due to a mechanical malfunction; the trial judge testified about defense challenges and juror siting, influencing the abatement findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the felonymurder instruction harmed Nava and Mendez egregiously | Nava argued the ‘intent to promote or assist’ theory should not apply to felony murder. | Nava and Mendez argued the instruction was ambiguous about which 'offense' the intent referred to and could mislead regarding murder vs theft. | No egregious harm; charging construed as consistent with law as a whole. |
| Whether the missing voir dire record required abatement for appeal | Appellants contended missing bench-conference notes could conceal rehabilitative or cause-challenge issues. | Defendants argued the missing record was necessary to preserve appeal and raise claims of improper challenges for cause or ineffective assistance. | Lost-record rule satisfied; court affirmed abatement ruling finding the missing portion not necessary to resolve the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (harm standard for unobjected jury instructions)
- Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (instruction clarity and harm assessment)
- Mireles v. State, 901 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (use of common sense in assessing ambiguity)
- Flanagan v. State, 675 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (intent to promote or assist requires result-oriented mens rea)
- Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (accomplice mens rea may exceed principal's)
- Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (conspiracy or accomplice liability standards)
- Taylor v. State, 109 S.W.3d 443 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (harmless-error considerations and impact on punishment issues)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (harm analysis under Rule 34.6)
- Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (voir dire and missing-record implications)
- Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (preservation and harm in missing-record contexts)
- Rowtier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (discussed with voir dire and preservation framework)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (policy on indictment-specific mens rea and conspiracy)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (reiterated on instruction interpretation)
- Mireles v. State, 901 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (common-sense approach to ambiguity)