SWEED v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1395
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Sweed was convicted of aggravated robbery with two prior felonies and sentenced to 38 years.
- The State alleged the theft was the underlying act, with the knife threat occurring during or after a theft in progress.
- At trial Sweed requested a jury instruction on theft; the State sought an instruction on aggravated assault in case theft was charged, but the court denied both.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was no evidence to support a theft instruction.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to decide whether there was trial evidence supporting a theft instruction.
- The Court held that there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting a theft instruction and remanded for a harm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery. | Sweed argues evidence supports two plausible inferences; theft may be the sole offense. | State argues no rational alternative; theft not supported as a lesser-included offense by the facts. | Yes; the evidence supports giving a theft instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (two-step test for lesser-included offenses)
- Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (two-step analysis framework)
- Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (plurality approach to lesser-included offenses)
- Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (requires a rationally possible alternative to convict on lesser offense)
- Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (evidence must present a rational alternative to charged offense)
- Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (anything more than a scintilla supports lesser offense)
- Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (evidentiary threshold for lesser-included offenses)
- Ex parte Amador, 326 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (properly compares elements to determine inclusion)
- Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (element-based analysis for lesser-included offenses)
- Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (if any evidence raises a lesser offense, must submit)
- Thomas v. State, 708 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1986) (definition of immediate flight in context)
- Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (lies-between offenses doctrine discussed)