© 2002 Lang Baker
Adame v StateMarch 6, 2002No. 594-01 Concurring opinion by Judge Johnson Links to other opinions in this case: Majority opinion by Judge Hervey Concurring opinion by Judge Meyers IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 594-01 BOBBY ADAME, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON STATES PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS HILL COUNTY Johnson, J., filed a concurring opinion. C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery, pursuant to §§ 29.03(a)(2) and 1.07(a)(17)(B) of the Texas Penal Code.1 The pistol used by appellant was later found and identified as a BB gun, which fires projectiles with energy from compressed air rather than from an explosion or burning material. Thus, it is not a firearm and not a deadly weapon per se.2 The indictment in the instant case properly alleged that appellant did then and there, while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent to obtain or maintain control of said property, intentionally or knowingly threaten or place Susan Stone in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and the defendant did then and there use or exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: a BB gun that in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. At trial, when asked by the state on direct examination whether she was in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, the attendant answered, Most definitely. Officer Gonzales, who was involved in the investigation of the robbery, testified that, based on his past experience, the pistol could cause serious bodily injury, if pointed and fired at someone. The court of appeals observed that [t]he fact that a BB pistol is loaded or unloaded is significant in the deadly weapon analysis, and that a BB pistol is generally not capable of causing death or serious bodily injury unless it is loaded. Adame, 37 S.W.3d at 143-44. The court of appeals correctly stated that this Court recently held in McCain that objects used to threaten deadly force are in fact deadly weapons and that the key to a deadly weapon finding is whether the weapon is capable, in the manner of its use or intended use, of causing death or serious bodily injury. Id. at 144. However, in McCain, we also stated:
McCain, 22 S.W.3d at 503. Here, appellants conduct threatened deadly force, regardless of his intent or lack of intent to actually use deadly force or, indeed, his actual ability to use deadly force. Id.; see also Bailey v. State, 38 S.W.3d 157, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (per curiam). Johnson, J. Date Filed: March 6, 2002 This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors. Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
© 2002 Lang Baker |