X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Robert Huffman was accused of failing to stop and render aid after becoming involved in an accident that resulted in the death of Rafael Garcia. At trial, Deputy Joe Costa of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department testified that on the morning of Aug. 19, 2004, he was dispatched to Highway 281 South. When he arrived, an ambulance was already there, and the body of a young male was lying on a driveway down an embankment at the side of the road. Someone later identified that young male as Garcia. Deputy Sheriff Adrian Ramirez photographed the area and collected evidence. Among the items he collected were a rear view mirror, pieces of glass and paint chips. Investigator Jose Trevino testified that the debris and area where the victim was found were consistent with a motor vehicle-pedestrian collision. From the items collected at the scene, Trevino was able to identify the make and model of the vehicle that had hit Garcia: a red, Dodge pickup manufactured between 2000 and 2002. These details of the suspected vehicle were broadcast throughout the media. From his subsequent investigation, Trevino was able to determine the name of the suspect and his employer, James Kalisek of K Bar Construction. From his discussions with Kalisek, Trevino was able to identify the license plate and VIN number of the suspected vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle was Robert Huffman. On Aug. 22, 2004, Trevino went to Huffman’s girlfriend’s home but was unable to find Huffman at that location. Trevino then entered the details of the suspected vehicle into the TCIC/NCIC database. On Nov. 1, 2004, the Sheriff’s Department in Sumner County, Tenn., contacted Trevino and informed him that the vehicle had been located. After hearing all the evidence, the jury found Huffman guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. HOLDING:Affirmed. In his first issue, Huffman argued that error in the jury charge created the possibility of a non-unanimous verdict in violation of the Texas Constitution. Authorities charged Huffman, the court stated, with failing to stop and render aid, which under Texas Transportation Code �550.021 requires that the operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close to the scene as possible and remain at the scene of the accident, provide reasonable assistance and give his relevant information to the other driver or law enforcement. Huffman argued that pursuant to the Texas Constitution and Texas statutes, a jury’s findings on subsections (1), (2) and (3) of �550.021(a) must be unanimous and that because the jury was charged in the disjunctive, it could have returned a non-unanimous verdict. The state argued that because subsections (1), (2) and (3) are the manner or means of committing the offense, jury unanimity was not required. Pursuant to the requirements listed under subsection (a), an operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person must 1. immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close to the scene as possible; 2. immediately return to the scene of the accident if the vehicle is not stopped at the scene of the accident; and 3. remain at the scene of the accident until the operator complies with the requirements of �550.023. Because these three requirements were the direct object of the main verb in the statute, the court concluded that the Legislature defined the offense of failure to stop and render aid according to the defendant’s actions. Therefore, the court found that a jury’s findings with respect to the requirements under �550.021(a) must be unanimous. In Huffman’s case, the charge did not require jury unanimity. Instead, in the application paragraph, the jury was instructed that it could find Huffman guilty if it found either of the above requirements to be true. Therefore, the court held that the trial court erroneously charged the jury, creating the possibility of a non-unanimous verdict. In reviewing the record, however, the court held that the error did not constitute egregious harm. Although circumstantial, the evidence of Huffman’s guilt was overwhelming, the court stated. Next, Huffman argued that the “trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after a prosecution witness testified that [he] did not consent to a search of his motel room.” The court disagreed, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. Finally, Huffman argued that the trial court caused Huffman “egregious harm when it instructed the jury concerning an enhancement allegation that referred in nonsensical terms to a concept that is not an offense under the laws of the State of Texas or any other jurisdiction.” At the charge conference on punishment, Huffman’s trial counsel asked the trial court not to identify Huffman’s prior conviction as “possession of a prohibited firearm.” Thus, the court stated, Huffman’s trial counsel requested that the trial court change the charge back to “Poss. Proh. Firearm.” Therefore, the court stated that Huffman could not claim on appeal that trial court caused egregious harm by granting his request and changing the charge. OPINION:Angelini, J.; Stone, Angelini and Hilbig, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.