Conroy v. State case brief summary
843 S.W.2d 67 (1992)
CASE FACTS
Defendant accidentally shot and killed a female escort hired from a service. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter and found to have used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense and was sentenced to three years confinement. On appeal, defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish the element of reckless mental state to support his conviction.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's decision that convicted him of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter, and found that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense and sentenced him to three years confinement. The court held that the trial court committed a reversible error in failing to include defendant's requested instruction on criminally negligent homicide in the jury charge and remanded the issue.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
843 S.W.2d 67 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant challenged the decision of
the 176th District Court of Harris County (Texas), which convicted
him of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, found
that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, and
sentenced him to three years confinement.CASE FACTS
Defendant accidentally shot and killed a female escort hired from a service. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter and found to have used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense and was sentenced to three years confinement. On appeal, defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish the element of reckless mental state to support his conviction.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.
- The court rejected defendant's contention, finding that a jury could have rationally found that defendant was aware of the risk of death associated with his actions, that the risk was substantial and unjustifiable, and that defendant consciously disregarded that risk.
- The court found that the trial court committed a reversible error in failing to include defendant's requested instruction on criminally negligent homicide in the jury charge in light that certain evidence raised the issue of whether defendant was criminally negligent.
- The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit defendant's requested instruction on involuntary conduct.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's decision that convicted him of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter, and found that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense and sentenced him to three years confinement. The court held that the trial court committed a reversible error in failing to include defendant's requested instruction on criminally negligent homicide in the jury charge and remanded the issue.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment