A Prescription for Acquittal

The State of Texas charged and convicted Bille Jean Avery of attempting to obtain a controlled substance “through use of a fraudulent prescription form.” The evidence presented at trial, however, revealed that the defendant actually used a legitimate prescription form, but that she forged some data on her prescription information in an attempt to obtain stronger pain pills.

In her appeal to the 13th District Court of Appeals (Corpus Christie), Appellant argued that she could not be convicted of using a “fraudulent prescription form” when the prescription form she used was legitimate.  The Court of Appeals agreed and acquitted her of the offense.

On discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Court of Appeals’ affirmed judgment of acquittal. In a unanimous opinion, the CCA explained:

Just as tax information should be recorded on a tax form to create a competed tax return, so too prescription information should be recorded on a prescription form to create a completed prescription.  The information that is written on the form is not the form itself…[W]e hold that “prescription form” refers to a pre-printed form designed to have prescription information written on it.

This was a case of a simple charging error by the Disctrict Attorney's office, but it goes to show that attention to detail can win the day.

What's in a Name?

Last year I wrote about Byrd v. State, a case out of the 4th District Court of Appeals (San Antonio). In Byrd, the state charged appellant with theft of certain property from owner “Mike Morales.” At trial, however, the State did not prove, in any way whatsoever, that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The overwhelming proof showed that the property, in fact, belonged to Wal-Mart. On appeal, appellant argued the the evidence was insufficient because the State did not prove that the property belonged to Mike Morales. The 4th Court disagreed, holding that the name of the owner was not required, as it was simply a variance of proof.

This week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Cochran, the CCA held that:

Although the name of the owner is not a substantive element of theft, the State is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person (or entity) alleged in the indictment is the owner is the same person (or entity) – regardless of the name – as shown by the evidence.

The CCA explained that a conviction would still stand if an indictment alleged an incorrect name, such as Buddy Smith, when the proof at trial revealed that the victim’s name was, in fact, John Smith (Buddy was simply a nickname). In that instance, there would be sufficient evidence showing that the person alleged in the indictment is the same person from whom the property was stolen.

In this case:

Not only did the State fail to offer any evidence that "Mike Morales" - the person alleged in the theft indictment - has any ownership interest in or relationship to the property appellant shoplifted, but the jury, without any apparent concern the missing "Mile Morales," convicted her nevertheless.  According to the State, the "only explanation for this exceptional circumstance seems to be that it was so clear to all the parties involved - and possibly to the jury as well - that the real victim (both alleged and proven) was Wal-Mart that the discrepancy seemed not to matter."  An alternate, less generous explanation, is that everyone was asleep at the wheel.

As a rule for future theft cases, the majority opinion states:

The parties, the court, and the jury must know the identity of the owner [of the stolen property] regardless of how the State names him.

It is worth noting that the CCA did not foreclose the option of the State reindicting the appellant for theft from “Wal-Mart,” as jeopardy has not attached to that specific offense. But as far as theft from Mike Morales goes, the appellant stands acquitted.

Grand Jury Errors Go to the Charging Decision, Not the Conviction

During the grand jury hearing for would-be defendant Ronnie Duane Mason, two police officers questioned a witness on the record, despite the fact that article 20.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that only the attorney representing the State or a grand juror may question a witness. Mason was later charged with and convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, Mason argues that by allowing unauthorized persons to question a witness during grand jury proceedings, his substantial rights were violated. See Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). The 7th District Court of Appeals (Amarillo) reversed the trial court ruling after concluding that the State’s unauthorized questioning caused harmful error. The Court of Criminal Appeals now reverses the 7th Court holding that the error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the court must decide that the error affected the charging decision or the ultimate conviction/sentence. The State was arguing that the violation must affect the conviction and sentence, and conversely, appellant argued that it need only affect the charging decision.  The 7th Court agreed with appellant that a grand jury error must be analyzed for its effect on the charging decision. The CCA, borrowing Justice O’Connor’s reasoning from her concurring opinion in U.S. v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986), followed in line with the 7th Court, holding:

[A]ddressing a grand jury statutory violation, the proper subject of a harm analysis is the product of those proceedings; the charging decision.

The CCA did not concur, however, with the 7th Court harmless error analysis, stating:

We agree with the analytical focus chosen by the court of appeals, but we do not agree with its conclusion that the State’s actions caused harmful error.

Judge Womack concurred and would follow the Supreme Court majority opinion in Mechanik.

Takeway: A defendant/appellant must show that the grand jury error affected the charging decision in order to demonstrate a violation of his/her substantial rights. Great, but how do you do that with the one-sided transcript of a grand jury proceeding? Good luck.

“Manner and Means to the Grand Jury Unknown”

I've been told that rules are made to be broken.  It seems, the CCA agrees.  Okay, maybe not "broken," but certainly modified.  Yesterday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overruled 17 years of precedent from Hicks v. State, 860 S.W.1 2d 419 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993) in cases involving an indictment (or jury charge) alleging “unknown manner or means" by which a defendant committed an offense.

In Sanchez v. State, the Appellant was convicted of “intentionally and knowingly caus[ing] the death of [the victim] by manner and means to the Grand Jurors unknown.” The court likewise charged the jury on the “unknown” manner and means. The Appellant objected to the “manner and means unknown” theory because, as he argued, the allegation was unsupported by the evidence presented at trial and was thus based on insufficient evidence to convict. The trial court overruled the objection. Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty-eight years in prison.

On appeal to the 13th District Court of Appeals (Corpus Christie), Appellant argued that the manner and means the Appellant employed were not actually unknown as there was testimony at trial regarding possible strangulation and use of a stun gun, and that the jury charge was erroneous in authorizing conviction on an “unknown” theory. The 13th Court bought it.

In determining whether the trial evidence was sufficient to warrant a charge on the “unknown” theories, the [Appellate] Court relied on the rule stated in Hicks v. State that when an unknown allegation is made in an indictment, the burden falls to the State either to present a prima facie case at trial that the manner and means were actually unknown, or to prove (usually by testimony) that the grand jury used due diligence to ascertain the manner and means of death.

The CCA, however, was no so persuaded. Identifying the thrust of the Hicks decision as “notice to the defendant,” the CCA explained that the rule “seems to have lost it intent and focus.” Devising a new rule in “unknown manner and means” cases, the CCA held:

we overrule the two-pronged rule in Hicks and announce a new standard for indictments with “unknown” allegations to the grand jury that are subsequently used as the jury charge at trial:

Where the State has alleged “unknown” manner and means in the indictment and/or jury charge, the defendant may challenge the propriety of the “unknown” allegation before trial and (if the evidence at trial has made a second inquiry necessary) at the conclusion of evidence, but before the charge is submitted to the jury.

Addressing the “notice” concern of the Hicks litany, the CCA provided:

The first question (whether raised before or during the trial) is whether the defendant was given proper notice so that he could properly prepare for trial. The pre-trial hearing will ensure that the “unknown” allegation was truly unknown to the grand jury and is not being used to surprise or manipulate the defendant at trial. This hearing replaces the Hicks test, but does not require proof of “unknownness” at trial. Instead, it permits hearings that will, at the very least, elicit all evidence that is now known so that the “unknown” aspect of the case can be minimized or eliminated by amendment of the indictment or the presentation of a superseding indictment.

The CCA reversed the 13th Court and affirmed Appellant’s conviction.

Must the State Prove the Identity of the Victim in a Theft Case?

The 4th District Court of Appeal (San Antonio) delivered a sharply divided en banc opinion yesterday in Byrd v. State.  The issue in the case was whether, in a theft case, that State is required to prove the person named as owner in the charging instrument was the actual owner of the property?  In a 4-3 decision the majority held that because the owner’s name is not a statutory element of the offense of theft, the State need not prove the name of the property owner as charged.

In her dissent, Justice Simmons did not mince words:

Although this misdemeanor case seems small, the ramification of the majority opinion is large. In this case the jury was charged to find the defendant guilty if the State proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lavonne Byrd:

“with the intent to deprive the owner, Mike Morales, of property, . . . did unlawfully, without the effective consent of the owner, Mike Morales, appropriate said property by acquiring and otherwise exercising control over said property . . .

Without any evidence in the record identifying Mike Morales or linking Mike Morales to the property at issue, the jury returned a guilty verdict.  This is an astonishing result. T he consequence of the majority opinion is to permit the conviction of a defendant for theft without regard to the identity of the owner.  I must respectfully dissent because I believe the case reflects a failure of proof rather than a variance. But even if the case is analyzed under variance parameters, the variance is material.  The majority opinion reaches its conclusion that the variance is immaterial by misinterpreting the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Bailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).  In no recorded case has a court ever held a defendant guilty of theft absent proof of ownership as alleged and charged.  There are plenty of cases to the contrary pointing out that failure to establish ownership in the person or entity alleged as owner results in a failure of proof.  But whether the error in this case is characterized as a material variance or a failure of proof, the case should be reversed.