Rice v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 328
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (motor vehicle) led to convictions; sentences were suspended with community supervision.
- Indictments alleged use and display of a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon and harm in the manner of its use, but did not expressly allege driving.
- Appellant sought jury charges on reckless driving and attempted aggravated assault; the trial court denied.
- Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding reckless driving was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as indicted.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to determine if reckless driving is a lesser-included offense where driving is not alleged in the indictment.
- Court held that reckless driving is not a lesser-included offense as indicted and affirmed reversal to address remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is reckless driving a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged? | Rice: elements deducible from indictment; cognate-pleadings approach supports inclusion. | State: driving not required by indictment; cannot deduce driving from indictment. | No; reckless driving is not a lesser-included offense. |
| Can driving be deduced from the indictment to imply a lesser offense? | Rice: driving element deducible from 'manner of use' language. | State: deducing driving is impermissible; reliance on trial evidence is improper. | Indictment does not inherently contain driving; cannot deduce driving from the charge. |
| Did the court of appeals apply the cognate-pleadings approach correctly under Hall/Watson? | Rice: proper under Hall/Watson to use pleading elements to determine lesser offenses. | State: Hall/Watson require strict statutory approach; indictment must include driving element. | Court of Appeals misapplied Hall/Watson; reckless driving not included. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (two-step analysis for lesser-included offenses; cognate-pleadings approach)
- Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (cognate-pleadings framework; establishment of lesser offenses by indictment elements)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (harm analysis 기준 for preserved error (Almanza standard))
- Salazar v. State, 284 S.W.3d 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (functional equivalence concept in lesser offenses; notice within indictment)
- McKithan v. State, 324 S.W.3d 582 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (limits on functional equivalence; elements vs. pleaded facts)
- Farrakhan v. State, 247 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (discussion of how greater offense may be committed in multiple manners)
- Benge v. State, 94 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (pre-Hall precedents rejected; improper reliance on trial proof)