Thornton, Gregory
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 440
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Police officers observed Thornton discard a glass crack pipe in plain view during a traffic stop for sidewalk use; Roberts maintained continuous sight of the pipe, Meil did not; Thornton was charged with tampering with evidence by concealment and convicted; the court of appeals reversed, acquitting Thornton on the concealment count, and Bowen v. State later allowed reform to a lesser offense on remand; this Court granted discretionary review to address preservation, Bowen applicability, and sufficiency for attempted tampering; the Court now holds that judgment reform to the lesser offense is proper and remands for reform to attempted tampering with evidence.
- The majority explains that Bowen allows reform to reflect a lesser-included offense where the State proves the essential elements but not an aggravating element, and that Bowen can apply even when the lesser offense was not submitted at trial.
- Bowen’s reasoning centers on avoiding the unjust result of outright acquittal and the need to respect the jury’s findings while ensuring the lesser offense can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Thornton v. State (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2013) is used to analyze whether the jury implicitly found all elements of the lesser offense or attempted offense.
- The Court ultimately remands to reform the judgment to reflect attempted tampering with evidence and to hold a punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether error preservation blocks reform under Bowen | State preserved Bowen’s applicability | Court of appeals treated waiver as fatal | Sustained; Bowen applies regardless of preservation. |
| Whether Bowen applies to essential-elements analysis | Bowen applies when lesser offense can be proven from the greater verdict | Bowen does not apply when concealment is essential, not an aggravating element | Bowen applies; it can justify reform to a lesser offense. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support attempted tampering | Evidence supported specific intent to conceal | Evidence did not show specific intent to conceal | Sufficient evidence to support attempted tampering; reform warranted. |
| Whether reform to attempted tampering aligns with Bowen Britain framework | Reformation aligns with Bowen/Britain to avoid unjust acquittal | Reformation to an offense requiring specific intent may be improper | Proper to reform given the jury’s implied findings and sufficiency. |
| Scope of reformation authority after BowenBritain | Court may reform to lesser offense when warranted | Reformation should be limited; remand for trial on attempted tampering as alternative | Remand or reform depending on record; here reform to attempted tampering is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. State, 374 S.W.3d 427 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (reformation of judgment to reflect lesser offense when evidence supports it)
- Britain v. State, 412 S.W.3d 518 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (caution against reforming without proof of all elements of lesser offense)
- Thornton v. State, 401 S.W.3d 395 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2013) (sufficiency and reformation analysis in tampering cases)
- Haynes v. State, 999 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overreaching and waiver principles in reformation)
- Collier v. State, 999 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (early rule limiting reform based on trial strategy)
- Britain v. State, 412 S.W.3d 518 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (limits on reform when essential elements are not proven)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (evidence of intent to kidnap and related sufficiency standards)
- Chen v. State, 42 S.W.3d 926 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (intent requirements in criminal attempt)