Redding, Dennis Roy
PD-1478-15
| Tex. | Dec 18, 2015Background
- Defendant Dennis Redding, charged with murder, was convicted by jury of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and sentenced to 7 years. The incident: Redding, heavily intoxicated after drinking with a longtime friend, pointed a handgun and fired; the friend later died.
- Multiple witnesses testified Redding was intoxicated that evening; the victim repeatedly characterized the shooting as an "accident."
- At trial, the State requested and the court gave a statutory voluntary-intoxication instruction tracking Penal Code § 8.04(a): "Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of a crime." Redding requested an application paragraph expressly reminding the jury that intoxication does not negate the State’s burden to prove intent/knowledge/recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt; the court refused.
- Redding objected to the inclusion of the § 8.04 instruction (arguing it was unwarranted) and to the omission of his proposed application paragraph (arguing the jury could be misled into thinking intoxication relieved the State of proving mens rea). He also objected to portions of the State’s closing argument as misstating mens rea law.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the § 8.04 instruction was warranted because some testimony could lead a juror to infer intoxication excused conduct; (2) refusing the proposed application paragraph was not error because the charge elsewhere told jurors the State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) any closing-argument errors were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a voluntary-intoxication instruction (§ 8.04) was proper | State: Evidence (and argument) of heavy drinking could lead jurors to think intoxication excused conduct, so instruction prevents confusion | Redding: No defense theory relied on intoxication; instruction not warranted because intoxication did not excuse conduct or relieve burden | Court: Instruction proper when any evidence might lead jury to infer intoxication excused actions (Taylor/Sakil) |
| Whether an application paragraph was required to remind jury that intoxication does not negate State's burden to prove mens rea | Redding: Abstract § 8.04 language is inadequate; must include application telling jury State still must prove intent/knowledge/recklessness beyond reasonable doubt | State: General burden-of-proof instructions in the charge adequately informed jury of State's obligation | Court: No error in denying proposed paragraph; general instructions elsewhere in charge satisfied the requirement |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument misstated mens rea law and warranted reversal | Redding: Prosecutor invited jury to convict based on conduct rather than required result-oriented mens rea for murder | State: Argument was permissible as reasonable deduction from evidence; jury may infer intent from acts | Court: Even if misstatements occurred, they were not manifestly improper and any error was harmless given strength of manslaughter proof and correct charge language |
Key Cases Cited
- Sakil v. State, 287 S.W.3d 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (§ 8.04 instruction prevents confusion and reaffirms mental-state requirements; does not relieve State of burden)
- Taylor v. State, 885 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (§ 8.04 instruction appropriate when evidence from any source might lead jury to conclude intoxication excused conduct)
- Raby v. State, 970 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (§ 8.04 instruction does not unconstitutionally shift State’s burden to prove intent)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discussing limits on using intoxication evidence to rebut culpable mental state)
- Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial court must fully instruct jury and apply law to facts in charge)