33rd / 424th District Courts

The case is Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305, 04/12/06]. WL 931605 or 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 769

The summaries below are not mine, but taken from a reporting service. I thought this to be of potentially broad application and therefore of interest to the criminal bar.

JURY VERDICT – UNANIMITY – NOT REQUIRED FOR MEANS OF COMMISSION
While jury unanimity is required on the essential elements of the offense, when the
statute in question establishes different modes or means by which the offense may be
committed, unanimity is generally not required on the alternate modes or means of
commission. Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY VERDICT – UNANIMITY CHALLENGE – TEST
The first step in evaluating a unanimity challenge is to examine the language of the
statute to determine the elements of the crime and whether the legislature created a single
offense with multiple or alternate modes of commission. In other words, did the legislature
intend to create multiple, separate offenses or a single offense capable of being committed in
several ways. The second step in the analysis is to evaluate whether the lack of jury unanimity
on the alternate means or modes of commission violates due process. This involves an inquiry
into the fundamental fairness and rationality of the legislative choice, starting with a
presumption that the legislature has made its determination fairly and rationally. Jefferson v.
State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

INJURY TO A CHILD – STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The legislature intended the phrase “act or omission” to constitute the means of
committing the course of conduct element of the offense of injury to a child. Jefferson v.
State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

INJURY TO A CHILD – DEFINITION
A person commits the offense of injury to a child if (with a particular culpable mental
state) he causes serious bodily injury to a child by act or omission. Jefferson v. State, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

INJURY TO A CHILD – CONDUCT ORIENTED CRIME
The essential element or focus of the injury to a child statute is the result of the
defendant's conduct and not the possible combinations of conduct that cause the result.
Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

INJURY TO A CHILD – CONDUCT MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Because the injury to a child statute does not specify the nature of conduct, the conduct
is inconsequential to its commission as long as the conduct, whatever it may be, is voluntary
and done with the required culpability to effect the result the legislature has specified.
Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY UNANIMITY– DUE PROCESS NOT VIOLATED
Due Process comes into play whenever one means is treated as the equivalent of
another. Dispensing with juror unanimity in this situation does not violate due process because
the acts or omissions that combine to establish the offense of injury to a child case are basically
morally and conceptually equivalent. Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App.
2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY UNANIMITY – SAME TRANSACTION
When the separate the act and omission all involve the same injury to the same child
during the same transaction with a similar level of culpability, it would be absurd to set a
defendant free because six jurors may have believed the injury occurred by an act while six
other jurors may have believed the injury occurred by an omission. Jefferson v. State, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY UNANIMITY – STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – ELEMENT V. FACT OR MEANS
Courts must examine the language of the statute to determine whether a particular term
in a statute is an element requiring juror unanimity, or an underlying brute fact or means of
committing an element, which does not require juror unanimity. Jefferson v. State, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY UNANIMITY – UNFAIRNESS
The Constitution itself limits a State’s power to define crimes in ways that would permit
juries to convict while disagreeing about means, when the definition risks serious unfairness to
the accused and the definition lacks support in history or tradition. Jefferson v. State, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].

JURY INSTRUCTION – UNANIMITY – NOT REQUIRED FOR SAME TRANSACTION
No unanimity instruction is required when the acts of abuse are so closely connected
that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense, or when the
applicable statue contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period
of time. Jefferson v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD036305,
04/12/06].
Powell v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [PD072605,
04/12/06].