RANSIER, CHARLES ROBERT v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0289-20
CHARLES ROBERT RANSIER, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
COMAL COUNTY
NEWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
I disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the trial court properly
denied Appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the offense of
attempted tampering with evidence. The Court fails to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the requested instruction. It
focuses on evidence that establishes the greater offense of tampering
Ransier Dissenting — 2
without considering the affirmative evidence negating the greater
offense. Applying the proper standard establishes that there was at
least some evidence from which a jury could have held a reasonable
doubt about the greater offense and found Appellant guilty of only the
offense of attempted tampering.
When reviewing whether an appellant is entitled to an instruction
on a lesser included offense, we view the facts in the light most
favorable to the requested instruction. 1 0F In Chavez v. State, we
considered all the evidence admitted and explained why the specific
evidence the defendant pointed to did not affirmatively rebut or negate
the evidence presented that the defendant had the intent to kill when
the victims were killed. 2 As we explained, the evidence of statements
1F
from a co-defendant regarding his belief had nothing to do with the
defendant’s state of mind when the murders were committed. 3 2F
But in this case, there was some evidence that Appellant
attempted but failed to conceal the syringe that was later found to
1
Wade v. State, 663 S.W.3d 175, 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); See also Bufkin v. State,
207 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that courts reviewing the denial of a
requested instruction view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant’s
requested instruction).
2
Chavez v. State, 666 S.W.3d 772, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (“None of the evidence
cited by Appellant, much of which was also cited by the court of appeals, rebuts or negates
the evidence that Appellant had the intent to kill when the victims were killed.”).
3
Id.Ransier Dissenting — 3
contain liquid methamphetamine. 4 In a recorded statement, Appellant
3F
admitted to trying to break or conceal the syringe in question. The
DPS trooper who ultimately seized the syringe testified that from the
point he saw Appellant with the syringe in his hand until he got
Appellant to the ground, he knew where the syringe was the whole
time. 5 This provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Appellant
4F
tried but failed to conceal the syringe. 6 5F
That said, this is another case that highlights the difficulty with
applying the valid-rational-alternative/guilty-only test. As I have
argued before, this is a court-made rule that we do not apply to the
State. 7 We should get rid of it altogether.
6F
With these thoughts, I respectfully dissent.
Filed: June 28, 2023
Publish
4
Ransier v. State, 594 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2019).
5
Id. at 10.
6
See Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (holding that
evidence was insufficient to establish concealment when witnesses never lost sight of pill
bottle thrown over a fence by the defendant).
7
Chavez, 666 S.W.3d at 781-82 (Newell, J., concurring).