State v. Rodriguez
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 446
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- State charged Rodriguez with recklessly discharging a firearm inside a large-city municipality by pulling the trigger on a loaded, operable firearm; the information purported to rely on a per se recklessness in discharging a firearm within city limits.
- Trial court granted Rodriguez’s motion to quash the information on grounds it failed to allege the circumstances showing recklessness.
- State appealed; court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to determine if the information sufficiently apprised Rodriguez of the recklessness theory; the court agreed with the court of appeals.
- Court held that the information did not allege the act or circumstances demonstrating recklessness; the charging instrument must describe circumstances indicating a known and unjustifiable risk; information here was essentially a tautology and defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the information adequately alleges recklessness under Article 21.15 | Rodriguez contends the information shows recklessness by discharging a loaded, operable firearm within city limits. | Rodriguez argues the information merely states the act of pulling a trigger and does not allege the circumstances showing recklessness. | No; the information fails to allege the circumstances indicating recklessness. |
| What framing of recklessness is required when charging under section 42.12(a) | State seeks to charge per se recklessness by simply discharging a firearm within a dense city. | Rodriguez urges that recklessness be described as actions around the act (circumstances) that create risk. | The information must allege circumstances showing a substantial and unjustifiable risk; mere discharging within city limits is insufficient. |
| What type of allegations satisfy Article 21.15’s notice requirement | State argues no extra-circumstantial details are needed beyond the act. | Rodriguez argues for explicit circumstances (e.g., shooting at a crowd) that demonstrate recklessness. | Allegations must describe specific circumstances surrounding the act that indicate recklessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vasquez, 34 S.W.3d 332 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000) (discharge within city limits not per se reckless; requires circumstances showing recklessness)
- Garza v. State, 50 S.W.3d 559 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (illustrates need for circumstances showing recklessness in 42.12(a))
- Townsley v. State, 538 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (notice of acts or circumstances surrounding conduct; whether reckless conduct sounds risky to ordinary person)
- Gengnagel v. State, 748 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (recklessness element requires alleged circumstances indicating risk when recklessness is an element)
- Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (art. 21.15 requires acts relied upon to constitute recklessness; conceptual issue with wording)