Wortham, Ronald Eugene Jr.
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1595
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Wortham lived with C.G. and her two-year-old daughter C.B.; he was with C.B. when injuries occurred.
- C.B. arrived at emergency room in serious condition with subdural hematoma, hypoxic ischemia, and intraventricular hemorrhaging; doctors treated her, but injuries indicated non-accidental trauma.
- Indictment alleged Wortham intentionally and knowingly caused serious bodily injury to a child by shaking and restricting airflow to cause suffocation.
- At trial, Wortham sought jury instructions on reckless and criminally negligent injury to a child; the trial judge denied both requests.
- Jury found Wortham guilty of injury to a child and sentenced him to forty years.
- Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the lesser-included offenses instruction; the court held the facts did not support the requested instructions under its misapplied two-part analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to lesser-included offense instruction | Wortham contends the evidence supports reckless and criminally negligent injury to a child by act. | State argues the evidence does not support a lesser offense under the first-prong test. | Wortham entitled to lesser-included instructions; reckless and criminally negligent injury to a child by act are lesser offenses. |
| Proper application of the cognate-pleadings test and first prong | Indictment alleged the same conduct (shaking) as the lesser offenses, satisfying the first prong. | Court of Appeals misapplied Thompson and focused on trial evidence rather than statutory elements. | The indictment alleges all elements of the lesser offenses; the first prong supports entitlement. |
| Second prong—evidence supports instruction | There is more than a scintilla of evidence that Wortham shook C.B. to revive her, which could negate intent/knowledge. | Medical evidence overwhelmingly shows injury was not caused by a bag or revival shakes, leaving no rational basis for a lesser offense. | Sufficient evidence existed to support a lesser-included offense instruction; the decision should not be based solely on medical testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (two-step cognate pleadings approach for lesser-included offenses)
- Thompson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 153 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (distinction between conduct and theory of case in lesser-included offense analysis)
- Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (relevance to lesser-included offense analysis and cognate pleadings)
- Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (clarifies focus on elements vs. trial evidence in submission decisions)
- Arevalo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (principles related to lesser-included offenses and focus on offense elements)
- Buffkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (unit of prosecution and alternate theories to explain the same injury)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (variance in pleading and proof for a result-oriented offense is nonmaterial)
- Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 782 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (when offenses explain the same injury, lesser-included instruction may be warranted)
- Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (affirms approach to elements and lesser-included offenses)