Ramos v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 952
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Ramos was indicted for capital murder, felony murder, and injury to a child in Danielle Ramos's death; three alleged methods included shaking and varying impact/striking scenarios.
- Dr. Paul Shrode testified that Danielle’s death resulted from head trauma with motion and impact; shaking with impact was consistent with the injuries.
- Ramos admitted throwing Danielle into a bassinet out of frustration, and the trial court sentenced him to manslaughter as a lesser-included offense.
- The court of appeals held the hypothetically correct jury charge for manslaughter would focus on recklessly causing Danielle’s death, not the specific manner alleged.
- Ramos challenged sufficiency of the evidence to prove shaking caused the death, and whether Article 21.15’s notice requirements applied to a lesser-included offense.
- The dissenting opinions discuss variances between pleading and proof, notice, and the cumulative-force framework (Lucio) for evaluating sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a material variance between pleading and proof about the method of death? | Ramos argues pleading relied on shaking as the method. | State argues variance is immaterial in a result-of-conduct crime. | Variance immaterial; evidence supports manslaughter verdict. |
| Does Article 21.15 apply to manslaughter when not charged in the indictment? | Ramos contends 21.15 requires recklessness specifics in the indictment. | State contends 21.15 does not apply since manslaughter not charged. | 21.15 not applicable here; no variance because manslaughter not alleged in indictment. |
| Is the State's evidence sufficient under a hypothetically correct jury charge for manslaughter? | Ramos argues the revealed acts must be included in the hypothetical charge. | State asserts gravamen is death; method detail not required. | Sufficient under cumulative-force analysis; proof supports death caused by Appellant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App.2012) (variance in method of killing in murder review; immaterial for sufficiency in some contexts)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App.2001) (variance between indictment and proof; notice and no double jeopardy risk)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App.2011) (cumulative-force framework for sufficiency when not all facts point directly to guilt)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.1997) (elements defined by hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Rodriguez v. State, 339 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App.2011) (pleading requirements for recklessness in offenses; explicit acts may be required)