*1 newly in cam- trial transcription judge appellant’s attorney discovered ordered produce hearing, points maps, era and reconsideration which aided en- relating compelled locating forcement officials in produc- the trial court’s the decedent. maps tion of obtained based newly transcription This discovered upon production. said certainly proceeding in camera contains evi- Granting rehearing impact analysis, on a case man dence that could this Court’s issued, initially date has with or without a motion since this concluded that “[a]t party, certainly compelled of. production unheard the time the trial court instance, McJunkins, parte For in Ex maps, authorities had reason to believe (Tex.Cr.App.1997) reh’g), (op. baby S.W.2d on might that still be alive.” this Court recalled the four mandate over Henderson v. S.W.2d However, above, months after grant quoted mandate had issued and judge, the trial untimely rehearing. ed an produc- State’s motion the fact on the map who was finder Patterson, recently parte claims, More in Ex tion/suppression point blankly (Tex.Cr.App.1998)(op. reh’g), on believe the decedent was still alive. And granted rehearing simply we on our own motion on such conclusion makes sense —how very day opinion original submis can a three-and-a-half-month-old infant who recently sion was delivered. And even more been has abandoned and alone outside —State, -, Mosley still be alive? 72,281, (Tex.Cr.App. WL 349513 deliv course this evidence of the in camera Of July 1998)(op. reh’g), ered we hearing may not alter conclusion this rehearing on own our motion and withdrew Court, considering i.e. even after this original opinion, our refused entertain may very points well still conclude that any original rehearing motion one two must be overruled. parties. from the Thus it grant should we withdraw the mandate and grant rehearing unheard for this Court to rehearing to at least address this new evi- motion. points dispose dence appellant’s suggesting And motion complete record. Because this Court refuses grant rehearing us that a tran- informs so, I to do scription newly discovered camera hearing, which contains information relevant disposition of error one and
two, has been recovered. tran- This
scription judge, shows that the trial deter-
mining production order
maps believed the decedent already was dead and thus there continuing Specifically, no kidnapping. Texas, The STATE of camera, said, the trial I’m that the child convinced is deceased. RENTERIA, Appellant. Jesse Alvarez And since I’m convinced the child is de- ceased, really I don’t see it can be an how No. 656-97. ongoing crime. Texas, Court of Criminal that he didn’t added see how En Banc. attorney he was maps. reveal the He even commented that July attorney “doing right thing” and that “[t]he rest of must do
right thing. You’ve shamed us into it.”
Nevertheless, judge reap- when the trial
peared watching court with the world aside, apparently
and all shame was brushed *2 car, including group with car, pulled
He out of his beaten passengers, then aban- several of the and ran over Belis They returned doned. times. claimed, his among appeal, appellant On error, points of that the court erred overruling objection to asser the State’s his could find tion in final con appellant guilty party. Appellant as a ai’gue tended this allowed responsibility properly criminal Appeals agreed and the conviction reversed on this basis. No. 08-95- 00155-CR, op. (Tex.App.-EI Paso slip at 10 (not 6, 1997, pet. granted) designated March for It found that publication). charge included instruction party as a the ab responsibility criminal application but not in the portion, stract Id. at 11. para paragraph. graph required to find the guilty only he bodily intending ... “did cause serious victim], intentionally or injury to [the Jr., Garcia, Odessa, appel- Robert V. knowingly clearly act dangerous commit an lant. life, beating namely sti’iking, human Paul, Austin, Atty., Matthew his, ... kicking him with the defendant’s the State. driving by striking and hands and feet and deadly body [the victim] ” weapon.... OPINION ON STATE’SPETITION FOR Id. The Court of concluded that DISCRETIONARY REVIEW responsibility issue of criminal PRICE, Judge, delivered the party properly jury, court, joined by McCORMICK, Presiding allowing the erred in the trial court MEYERS, MANSFIELD, Judge and juiy argue that the could find State to KELLER, WOMACK, HOLLAND Id. Finding party. at Judges. harmless, it that the error was not error, remaining reach Appellant was convicted of the offense of judgment and and reversed the trial court’s imprisonment murder and sentenced life new trial. at 13- remanded the case for a $10,000 group and a fine. He was dis- the State’s party August attended a who following cretionary ground: review on including people, appellant and the Several parties instruction forth Where a is set victim, Freddy Belis, liquor. purchase left to but not age pur- legal was the one of Belis alcohol, purchase chase but he was refused way he too On the because was intoxicated. defendant back, apparently propositioned Belis one of court, reported reversing the trial group, Galindo. In Chris Galindo Later, decisions, at the Belis was enticed relied on a number again, including leaving this time his into error, (Tex.Crim.App.1991). the abstract was no as the portion of argued jury. included an in- issue to the Renteria, 10-12; parties, slip. op. Tr., XI, struction but the at vol. *3 application portion only 15-17, point authorized conviction 40-41. The of error is robbery robbery for aggravated sustained.
principal. Id. at 668. We held that in meas- Appeals of in is not uring against charge, the evidence the entire the the first transform doc Jones/Walker the evidence was insufficient to convict Jones an “improper argument” trine into rule. robbery in aggravated non-parties capac- of a State, 9, See v. Sandoval 846 11 ity. 670-671. We reversed and or- refd) 1992, (Tex.App.-Corpus pet. Christi judgment acquittal. of dered a Id. at 671. that, (holding theory under of trans relied a cases line of which intent ferred sufficiency dealt with of the evidence as mea appear it did not in because the against sured the and which have paragraph, so in that trial court erred allow developed into the doctrine. jury). Benson/Boozer the it to the This doctrine was overruled us in only Because relates to suffi Jones/Walker State, (Tex. 234, Malik v. evidence, 953 S.W.2d 236-240 ciency hereby disavow Crim.App.1997). reasoning from Jones language holding the in otherwise Sandoval. other, similar cases has itself become judgment We reverse the the of Court of See, known the doctrine. Jones/Walker the and remand cause there to ad- State, e.g., Higginbotham 502, v. 919 S.W.2d appellant’s remaining dress error. 1996, refd). (Tex.App.-Fort pet. Worth question One is Malik the OVERSTREET, J., dissents with continuing validity of the doc Jones/Walker BAIRD, J., joins. trine. OVERSTREET, Judge, dissents. ques- we need not resolve today, tion because and Ben- Jones/Walker charge The court’s at the con- sufficiency dealt with the evi- son/Boozer only clusion of evidence is the law which against dence as measured the apply reaching are in their decision. Here, the issue before the Court concerns The application paragraph is that improper jury argument.1 court’s that authorizes the us, undisput- is convict. In the ease before held that “error in application part ed the jury argument going beyond does not lie in did not authorize stating charge, the court’s but in law con appellant as a party. trary to the same.”2 That error in arguing put, par- even if Simply a law is not included applica- ties must be included in the Thus, prosecutor argued paragraph tion beyond the charge before a conviction on that asks, argument. There authorized? The State’s fore, essence, assuming present even case that prosecutor’s beyond went conviction only arguing issues but contained in portion charge?1 there abstract Con- 810, Appellant sufficiency argument, (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Singleton did make a 813-814 v. State, it was limited to whether or not certain of the (Tex.Crim.App.1972); 479 S.W.2d were State's witnesses matter (Tex. State, v. Patterson of law. overruled this State, Daywood Crim.App.1970); 248 S.W.2d point error and it is not before us now. 1952). (Tex.Crim.App. Renteria, slip. op. at 8-10. See, State, Prosecuting Attorney's question upon 1. The e.g., Mauldin v. 628 S.W.2d (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Hill v. which we review asks: (Tex.
trary “yes” 08-95-00155-CR I answer to both Renteria 1997) and the trial record. App. Paso propositions. —-El the court’s The law reverses court Because given appellant. in connection with was never provides appeals again and once cover fact, error. gross To read it another detriment appellant being mention of accused, I and citizen dissent.2 the mouth of offense came from disposition of this de- case should be objection of argument, over the cided on issue whether the times, prose- At all objection appellant, engaged in im- principal cuted as actor. *4 argument.3 proper To answer this logic majority’s to reach journey majority would take on a desired result can be read to mean that good backwards ole of 1952 and to un- utterly useless and/or 266, 248 Daywood v. 157 Tex.Crim. necessary parties are not bound because the (1952). journey S.W.2d 479 A that starts by guided by it the law and the can be quote, grand ole but nevertheless the argued by it lawyers so as is correct. Oh!, quote, wrong road. why then isn’t becomes lie Error does not charge? The answer law in the correct beyond the court’s but lies stat- simple; Appel- it. didn’t include contrary ing law the same. to objected lant did not and should because of Daywood, absence S.W.2d at But what presented during trial it story, when about the rest of the when this Court allegation held, support the indictment “We do not find such here.” not as primary as actor and riding Daywood, supra, states, “That ap- majority court of stiff-arms the arguing the even if the law is not includ- decisis, eye peals, kicks stare sand Thus, a ed in the court’s government to con- now authorizes argued beyond by allowing govern- vict a citizen accused itself, improper lawyer blatantly lay citi- ment’s jury argument.” zen convict on of law (Tex.Cr.App.). of the contained in What the fails re- to realize and strong- jury. To these veal is that of the law of discussion majority, I arm tactics of the parties arguments concern- attached being accomplices as two witnesses being a matter of law and two of them to be BAIRD, J., joins. by determined matter of fact. the context revealed discussions litigants, contained the attempt help in an parties
to decide witnesses Chris Galindo and Ce- accomplices in fact. See
sar Udave were juty to applied If the trial the defendant as Where convict. parties case, Campbell believed that instruction is set forth he should have the law of included it in authorizes a for the in the fense U.S. (1 It is parties of murder. clear charge to the (Tex.Cr.App.1995), 116 S.Ct. the record and application paragraph of the did not authorize cert. undisputed L.Ed.2d denied, [9] [9] of- [6] ).