Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court,
An indictment accused the appellant of committing burglary of a habitation in each of twо ways in which such an offense can be committed: (1) by entering with intent to commit theft or (2) by entering and thereafter cоmmitting (or attempting to commit) theft. The trial court’s charge to the jury should have explained both kinds of burglary and authorized them to convict on either. Instead it explained one kind in the abstract statement of the law and authorized conviction on the other in the application paragraph:
Our law provides that a person commits the offense of burglary if, without the effective consent of the owner, he enters a habitation with intent to commit theft.
[[Image here]]
Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, RODGER LOU GRISSAM, in Hood County, Texas, on or about the 27th dаy of August, 2004, either acting alone or with Joseph LeFebvre as a party to the offense herein before defined, did then and there intentionally or knowingly, without the effective consent of Ashley Carey, the owner thereof, enter a habitation and did attempt to commit or commit theft, then you will find the defendant guilty of the offense of Burglary of a Habitation as alleged in the indictment. [Emphases added.]
The legal sufficiency of evidence is measured against the requirements for conviction in a correct charge of the court (as distinguished from the charge that actually was given). Malik v. State,
The Court of Appeals recognized that standard, but it read Malik and other deсisions to forbid it from applying any theory that was not submitted to the jury in the application paragraph of the charge. See Grissam v. State, No. 2-05-422-CR, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS 6843, at *8-9 (Tex.App.Fort Worth Aug. 24, 2007) (not designated for publication).
We said in Malik that “due process prevents an appellate court from affirming a conviction based upon legal and factual grounds that were not submitted to the jury.”
In the case before us, both theories of burglary were in the charge, although only one was in the application paragraph. The legal sufficiency of the evidence should have been measured against the requirements for conviction under either theory of burglary.
We vacate the judgmеnt of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for further consideration.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The jury in this casе was asked to vote on only one crime in the application paragraph of the jury charge-еntering a habitation and attempting to commit or committing theft. And, the court of appeals has already sаid that the evidence was not sufficient to support that conviction. The majority now sends this case back to the court of appeals to consider the sufficiency of a crime that was not presented to thе jury in the application paragraph. I’m having a hard time figuring out why the court of appeals should review аn offense that was not even presented to or considered by the jury.
The majority has decided to address this case by remanding it to the court of appeals for a sufficiency analysis under Malik v. State,
In my opinion, this case is similar to a situation in which there is a lеsser included offense. However, in the context of a lesser included offense, when, on appellatе review, the evidence to support a conviction for a greater offense is insufficient, then the cоurt of appeals can reform a conviction to a lesser offense only if the lesser included offеnse was presented to the jury. See Haynes v. State, — S.W.3d -, -,
I would also like to point out that the State asked us to review the court of appeаls’ sufficiency analysis as to the only theory it was presented with — it did not ask us to review the theory of the crime that was not presented to the jury.