OFFICE OF THE A’HORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
fionorablsXrnert Euirm
Gounty Attorney
Bl Paso, Taraa
bar Sir:
mmmllt with
vehiaLe aa to A,
brequ*at tP1al ror
nt hid0140 oi BR
lo o u*fully r o l80
a o f fo r mer
jropardn
en the brmizuberm aaptior+
putHi6imm yGlr l6ttmr In
l do se no t 8p p o a r to h a m
8k your opinion thrnon for
TM and the oottrt.
6,are standing 61~80 to oaah other DLL
it&wa~a.nUtolkine tosath@TandD ia
ii ha bo loqultted on
runs intrathorn,,
grarateU a8nul.t with a antor *ohiol*
am ~to A, in a wbaoquent trial for ne lgrnt heulaide
of B, 384~he suosssatully raia6 tbm p f!
ea of formsr
j6oparUy?”
Artisl6 1, Ysatton 14 of the Taxa 0oetltution p-da68
that8
Eon. Exnest Oulnn, page 2
"i.0person, for the acme oitenoe, shall be
twice put in jeoperdy of life or liberty, nor shall
a perccn bc nealn put upon trial for the 8emb oifenae,
after a verdict of not @lty In a court of aompetent
jurisdiction."
The aamc provision.la also contained In the Ck~?eof CrMnal
Proceaure. Article 8, ~ernon's&motataa C0ae or criminal Procs-
&ire.
There are ILOetatutes dofining the terms use4 or dealacing
the extent oi the appliaatlon of the ri&t - oaly lnaitmente
pr0daing *en all6hew jeopardy araybe phfkba. mn. 608, 609
and I5100i ~ernonLf3Annotated Code of Crltinal Prooedurc rerb
as followr:
Al-t*508. "The only epeolal plsao whioh oen bo
heard iOr the aerontmt atat
%. That he ham been oonvicted legally, in a
oourt of oompetent jnriu4Iiatlon,upon the 8nm
aoousatlon, after having beon tried upon the writ8
for ths came offense.
"2. ‘but he has beor l~fore hoquitted by a jury
of the lo o wa tio apinst
a him, in a ootartof oorgetent
jurlediotion, *ether the aaquittdslwas regular or
irxogular.*
Art. 609. *Every special plea shall be vertfled
by the affidavit of the defendant."
Art. 810. "All iaaues of fact pn8enfed by a
rpeolal plea ehall be tried by a jury.*
The aourts am very liberal in eon&ruing the constitutional
provisions, arteabi~ the rule to cases within lta N)aBon though
%bi.lsetatntss are to be 8trfatl.yinter-
not Wlthln It6 WOTilCIIII*
pret& aa against persons oharged with orlme, preVSionm intro-
au00a in their favor hhouiabe oonstrued llbimllyt and the same
distinction applleo to a written oon8tltutlon.. Griahum v. State,
19 'Sex,Cr. Apps. 604.
Ur&er the aristlLl(t
applioation of the principle Of jW-
pa$dp, a dfatinctim 18 dxawa between jeopardy~an,nBformer
-- 3%
eon. srnebt Guinn, page 8
oonviotlon Bna aaqulttal. The former is predloated upon a
proaeoutioo %ischarGed for valid eeueee without a verdlot the
latter pro-rupposes end is based upon v~ralotormnderdl. Q rlsham
v. State, auprs.
Inasmuch ae you predloate your question upon an aoquittal
on a ahargo of egcgarated assault with a motor vohiole, we
pruumo that you daolro to know whether a plea or fomer ao-
quittal dll 110 under the raote etatea.
In Texae ther, lo a well reoogulzed dlatincflon batwoon tb
ploaa of former ooaviotlon aptIfaram aaquittal. The plea of
forirw oonviotion only roqulroe that the tranrotlon, or the
faatm oonetituting it, bo the mm. Rzmor acquittal,on the
other hand, r4quirW not only that the trumaofion bo the mm8
but also thut the two ln&iotnuntm be rumeptible of a8 nurteln-
able by th 8 e mo It bar boon la fbthat
. t!d dlrtlaotloa
is the r&%&&Otrfne o? ouviug. UI ref. Jw. p. 667
Sec. BS9; Wlght V. State, 19 Per. Cr. Appe. lbtt Yiooo v. %a&,
9 TM. Or. Apia. 386.
Before an aoeueed oan lntmposa the bofenso of formor ao-
quit@&, the formr trial iaunt have bem upon the eamm &dontioal
orialibnl mot for whfoh the State fs a&ala aeoklaa to proaeontr,
hlr. tie oritr mu8t.b the meme in both oam8 though the
$kadtnga &iSfer insimatorial oireumtu&ou. 'fhocame offacre
muu the.laontisal arimbml lo t or oriealon; not the eu
o tr ~nw lo nemlne, or one ei the nme nature. 18 'pex.Jur.p.
6S4, Sea. 887. ~lllisuw f. at&e, 188 8. W‘ 4%
Uhoro, aa uabr tho iWOe here mabsdtML, more then one
perua im killed or lnjored "at the euae tima,’ a dlftlouit
qumtion often a8 to whdil%~~ the person re8pon@lblo for
ouoh lnjurirr or 8eath8 ooma%ttmI oarrottemo or 8steral
oiieneaa within o.rule rolatlng to (LoablejeepaMy.
When two OS more wrongful aOt8 ECO eoglaittedby thm de-
fendant, ao several ahots OF bLowe,~even though oloeoly oon-
neototlin point of tilPs,ii they are dfreatod at tifiorent
pur:sonscvabresult la the iajw or death of suoh par~one, there
10 apparent1 no Quwtloa but that,the oifenoee are dletinot
and an aoqult tal cst the murdeP of @.r luaul8 upon oao perma
is not a bar to a proreautbon:for the mudor of ar auault upon
aukother. The oaee8 gene~al~,~~lauL1Mlng thoeo in 'kxaa, are
..
/
Hon. krne8t Ouinn, page 4
in aooord on this golnt. 8 Rulirig Case iaw p. 161, sec. 139;
~upistine.v. i,tate,('for.Ci..Appo.) 82 s. Vi.77~ Skslton v.
date, (Tex. Cr. Lap.) 10 L. g*. (2%) 664.
In the letter case tte ecoueed, with a siqle barreled
ohotgun, fired at two mn pnseing Us house and they both feli,
one mortally wounded, acd) on the other running away, the so-
cueed raloabed his gun and shot him again. 'Ihocourt say8
that thora warn two scrparoteand &ittnot a88aults on the se-
oond mani anb that in::noevent would the aoquittal on tho last
assault upon the seaodd men bar a proesootiqm for the murder
of the other man. 880 also the 0888 or Kelly v. State (Tes.
Cr. Rap.) 68 s. h'.$16, where the erldsnoe ohowed that appel-
lant, grabhad hid pistol and fired twiae jpst a8 rapl4lJ a8
he oould,";and kflld tro brother8 in the 6a+~edffiiaultr,
Ba leadeb former aa uittal of kl~liug ona &n the ,trlal for
lcilP ing the other. 8he court held thrtthr plea aoul& pot b8
8u8taineU by tk:oevidence, broawe it showed it ~88 qot on8
8at OS miltion on the part oi the eppellant, but two 8hot8,
two 8eparate and dirtinot iatsntioar, two aot.8, two rolition8,
oo~tmQoraneou8.
Owens the result8 to differant fuUvlQual8 mm brou@t
about by a ein~le wrongful aat, a8 a eingle @hot or blow, how-
ever, the ease8 are in oonfliat ,a880 whether 8rpTato offenees
or only CUM offense was oomitb8d. 6on1aoaae8 hare bold that
there am not reparate offenaeo where tharo is but 8 ain@ sot,
men though two or more pmnoz~ are l888ulted or killed thereby.
&ma of tha8e aa8e8 80 holding do 80 upon the ground that under
8ueb olraum8taaaea thora ir a eirylo wrongful or etlmlM1 intent
and therefore there oannot be soreral proe8outlon8 without Ini
?rlngeamnt ti the rule amln8t double jeopardy. Othrr aourt8,
houera, have pointed out t&t the oharge8 8n& srldsnce upon
the two pro8eoationr invo lving lc lseult upon or mW%er of two
different person8 under mmh aireumatanaei are not ldsntloal 80
a8 to areatsiclenti%yof ofiene88 within the rule relating to
doubti j@mpardy.
From Bishop’s ibork on Criainal Law,~ (9th Mftion, 1963)
Ye&ion 1061, we puote as followsr
*i%hsrt, the same blow wourd8 or kills two'mea,
itiis oompetent for the pleader to abnrge it'a8
inflicted on the two; fa:other wordy. the proseaut-
1~ power may, if it p14b848, treat it as one
orfence. but the ladiotment will be bpually good
if ft alls:resthe beatlq or killing of one of them.
Should the probecutor ohoose the letter form, there
is euthorltg for saying that a jeopardy for the sat
viewed as a battery or homiolde of one of the men
will bar ah inQiatment fur it 18 an offencb to the
othbrj ant? thbrb 18 other authority that till not.
Obviously there i8 8 Qlfterrrnoebetween 01&evolition
and one tranaaatlon. Cn a view of our oombinsd
authoritfer thbm is little room for denial that In
om transeation a pereon nag aomit dirtinct offenoer
of assault or homiolde upon blr~erbnt pereona, and be
sbparatbly puniabed for baeh. hat if one by a lindb
roli,tionahauld aisobargb into a oolyrbgation of peo-
p18 a fir4-ar~ loaded titi pbaa iOr ahot, ah& bbOh
of rifty Qiftbreht person6 8hou~1Qbb hit by a pea,
It would bs rtutling to affira that hr oould bb
punioh8t¶for a88aUlt and battery fifty timO8, and
onab for Qirturbing the meeting. Cbrtainly It would
violate the spirit if not the lettet, of our
'twlae-in-Jeopardy1 gu4raaty; and bvbry proriston
for the 4484 of pereons aaauabd of orlmb la, to be
intbrprbted liberally, a8 extending to oa8ea within
its spirit, whether within the letter or not.*
our examination of the aam on this paint in Texa8 and
In other juri8QIctioa8 indioetes that the Qitfer~ob in the
oonalu81cne rbaahod by the various oesea ia brought about
largely on the gueation or raat 88 to whether th8 $bnt ot
the Q4f@mhEt was 814310 or pGra1.
The leading OaBb in Terar upon this point 18 Spannall v.
Litate,20% S. V+.SW, where the defendant lntent;o;~~tohot
end killed one Butler in allse;edaelf-defensb.
fired et Sutler lcilletl
Che'Qbfbndast'a own ar4 at the amib
tiEab. l'hbkilling of the wifb was apparently unintended. Trio
inQictn;entswere returned against the Qbfendant, one for killing
hib wife onathe other for the killing of fiutler. The defendant
wee fir& tried upon the indictment for the killing of his wife.
%ie~oaae was tried on the theory that, if the QbfenQ8nt shot
Butler in jurti?iabla self-defense, then ha was not guilty of
the r;iurder
for the acoidsntal nhootia$ of his wife, and rlae
versa. He waa soquitteQ upon the oheZ$e of killing hi8 Wife,
his noquittal was pleabed in bar of the further proaboution of
the ohnr,gbof murdel:a8 to sutlbf, and the court of Criminal
irppbeleheld that the failure of tbb trial court to adarit
318
t:on.iirnestGulnn, page 6
evldenoe end submit to the jury the lsausr raised by the plea
of former aOqu5.ttalrequired IIreverse1 OS the judgment of
the convlotion of the znurderof butler. ;Eequote Prom the
court's opinion as followst
"If he shot at Butler and in the same aot
killed tis. Ypennell unintentionally, his guilt
o r b .t~~o enee
o f laoh of the honrioidesrvouldde-
pend on v