Yzaguirre, Jay Paul
394 S.W.3d 526
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Yzaguirre charged with aggravated robbery; abstract jury charge included law of parties, but the application paragraph did not.
- Appellant requested a lesser-included offense instruction for robbery; the request was denied.
- Convicted of aggravated robbery; sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment; key issue is whether the jury could convict as a party under the charge as given.
- Court of Appeals held that entitlement to the lesser offense depended on whether party liability was before the jury and reversed for new trial.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the abstract law-of-parties instruction should be considered when deciding a lesser-included-offense submission; affirmed trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must law of parties be in the application paragraph? | Yzaguirre argues omission in application paragraph invalidates parties instruction. | State argues abstract instruction may suffice or be unnecessary entirely. | Abstract suffices for lesser-included-offense analysis; not required in application paragraph. |
| Should the law-of-parties instruction in the abstract be considered when deciding lesser offense? | Yzaguirre contends it should influence whether lesser offense should be submitted. | State contends it is not required for such analysis. | Yes; the abstract law-of-parties instruction must be considered in determining lesser-included-offense submission. |
| Is evidence sufficient to support a party theory under Malik framework for lesser offense? | Yzaguirre relies on Malik to measure sufficiency by hypothetically correct charge. | State argues Malik applies to sufficiency, not necessarily lesser-offense submission. | Malik applies; if evidence supports theory in abstract, it informs submission decision. |
| Was there evidence to support robbery as a lesser offense under the law of parties? | Court of Appeals found some harm and potential for lesser offense. | Evidence did not support lesser offense when considering the abstract theory. | There was no basis to submit robbery as a lesser offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct charge governs sufficiency and related analyses)
- Brown v. Collins, 937 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1991) (abstract parties instruction can support conviction under proper theory)
- Grissam v. State, 267 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (sufficiency review includes abstract legal theories)
- Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (law of parties in abstract may be considered in sufficiency review)
- Crenshaw v. State, 378 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishes use of abstract vs. application paragraphs in charge)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (case discusses relationships between charge and offense submission)
- Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (support for considering abstract theory in analysis)