© 2002 Lang Baker
Herrin v StateDecember 18, 2002No. 73,987 Dissenting opinion by Presiding Judge Keller Link to Majority opinion by Judge Holcomb IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO.73,987 JOHN MILTON HERRIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM JASPER COUNTY Keller, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KEASLER, and HERVEY, JJ. joined. DISSENTING OPINION The legal sufficiency question in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence to show an underlying offense that elevates the murder to capital murder. One underlying offense alleged in the indictment is attempted kidnapping.1 As the Court explains, for there to be a kidnapping, there must be restraint,2 which entails restricting a persons movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the persons liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or confining the person.3 Attempt occurs when, with the specific intent to commit a crime (e.g. kidnapping), the person does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended.4 It is no defense that a fact unknown to the defendant makes the crime impossible to complete.5 As in any other legal sufficiency review, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational jury could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.6 According to appellants fathers statement, after appellant shot Wayne, [Appellant] leaned the gun against the truck and he grabbed a hold of Waynes arms and started to drag him off. The Court contends that the State failed to show that appellant substantially interfered with Waynes liberty because he was unconscious when appellant attempted to move him to the bed of the pickup truck. But whether a victim is conscious or not should have no bearing on whether he is being kidnapped because the victims mental state is not an element of the offense. While appellant may not have succeeded in substantially interfering with Waynes liberty, a rational jury could have found that appellant attempted to do so. A rational jury could have found that appellant intended to drive away with Wayne in Waynes own truck and was stopped only because Bailey and Ray interfered. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that:
Driving away with Waynes unconscious body would have substantially interfered with his liberty by moving him a significant distance from where he intended to be and by depriving him of the potentially life-saving assistance of emergency medical personnel. I respectfully dissent. KELLER, Presiding Judge Date filed: December 18, 2002 8 The victim would have been dead by the time appellant came back to drag his body. But this fact is still probative of appellants intent to carry the victim away at the earlier point in time when the victim was still alive. 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 |