Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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