Smith, Sammy Lee Jr.
PD-1594-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 10, 2015Background
- Appellant Sammy Lee Smith, Jr. was convicted by a jury in McLennan County for making a terroristic threat and received 180 days in county jail.
- The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a memorandum opinion; Smith sought discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Smith challenged (1) the Waco Court of Appeals’ failure to address jury-charge error as its first duty, and (2) the purported cure of error by the application paragraph that quoted the statutory language on intent.
- The State argued the Waco Court correctly conducted harm analysis and that any error was harmless.
- The Batson challenge to Juror No. 2, asserting race-based discrimination, was reviewed and overruled at the appellate level, with deference given to trial-court credibility findings.
- The discretionary-review petition contends that terroristic-threat definitions are conduct-oriented and require tailored jury instructions, which the Waco Court did not adequately address.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-duty requirement on jury-charge error | Smith contends Waco erred by skipping its first duty to determine error in the charge. | State contends the issue was properly reviewed for harm and preservation. | Grant review; remand to address error first |
| Whether error in 'intentional' definition was cured by the application paragraph | Smith argues application paragraph did not fix the misdefinition of intent as related to conduct. | State maintains the application paragraph adequately guided the jury under the charged conduct. | Grant review; need proper harm analysis and tailored intent definition |
Key Cases Cited
- Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (establishes Almanza two-step review for jury-charge errors)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two-step analysis and harm assessment in charge errors)
- Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reiterates first duty to assess error in jury charge)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (defines that the charge must accurately convey essential elements)
- Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (warning that charge must communicate statutory definitions affecting elements)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (superfluous abstraction ordinarily not reversible when application paragraph confines deliberations)
- Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (requires tailoring culpable mental states to conduct elements)
- Gillette v. State, 444 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014) (terroristic threat is conduct-oriented; focus on conduct not just result)