Sanchez, Orlando
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 692
Tex. Crim. App.2012Background
- Appellant Orlando Sanchez appeals after a murder conviction; Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed on unknown-manner-and-means instructions and remanded for new trial.
- Indictment alleged the manner/means were unknown to the grand jury; trial evidence showed death by asphyxia with possible strangulation or stun-gun involvement.
- Medical examiner testified the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation; he could not determine the exact manner and means.
- Trial instructions permitted four theories, including unknown manner/means; objections argued those theories were unsupported by evidence.
- Malik v. State overruled Hicks and adopted a hypothetically correct jury charge standard for sufficiency review; Hicks is treated as defunct.
- Court holds the unknown-manner-and-means theories were erroneous but harmless; reverses the court of appeals and reinstates the trial judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of the Hicks rule after Malik | State argues Hicks governs. | Sanchez argues Malik supersedes Hicks. | Hicks overruled; Malik controls. |
| Whether unknown-manner-and-means instructions were proper | State contends instruction aligned with evidence. | Sanchez contends instruction authorized unsupported theories. | Error to include unknown theories, but harmless. |
| Harm analysis for jury-charge error | Unknown theories could have misled jury. | Sufficiency under other theories defeats prejudice. | Harmless error under Almanza framework. |
| Relation of unknown theories to surplusage | Unknown theories were consistent with indictment. | Unknown theories were surplusage unneeded for offense. | Unknown theories were surplusage but harmless. |
| Applicability of sufficiency review standard | Review should align with actual charge. | Hypothetically correct jury charge governs. | Malik governs sufficiency review; Hicks re the charge is abandoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 860 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (due-diligence rule; sufficiency review context before Malik)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge governs sufficiency)
- Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Malik effect on Hicks; charge-error context)
- Jorasco v. State, 6 Tex. Ct. App. 238 (Tex. Ct. App. 1879) (old sufficiency-review framework comparing to indictment)
- Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (indictment notice; surplusage in jury instructions)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unanimity on death; gravamen concept in murder)
- Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (unanimity on gravamen; theories of liability)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm analysis framework for defective jury charges)