<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CCP 21.15</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html</link>
	<description>the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 04:59:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Pelowski</title>
		<link>http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html/comment-page-1#comment-24989</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Pelowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html#comment-24989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re right about the jury charge:

...when recklessness is left out of the indictment for the charged offense, and no lesser included offense is submitted to the jury... then Article 21.15 precludes the inclusion of recklessness or criminal negligence in the jury instructions for the charged offense. Reed v. State, 117 S.W.3d 26, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

I didn&#039;t know that before. Thank you for pointing it out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You’re right about the jury charge:</p>
<p>…when recklessness is left out of the indictment for the charged offense, and no lesser included offense is submitted to the jury… then Article 21.15 precludes the inclusion of recklessness or criminal negligence in the jury instructions for the charged offense. Reed v. State, 117 S.W.3d 26, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).</p>
<p>I didn’t know that before. Thank you for pointing it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Bennett</title>
		<link>http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html/comment-page-1#comment-24973</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html#comment-24973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two unpublished Dallas cases do not an evisceration make.

&lt;i&gt;Crawford,&lt;/i&gt; on which &lt;i&gt;Thai&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; assertion that the State need not allege reckless facts if it also pleads knowledge or intent is based, is interesting in what it lacks: any discussion of the jury charge. If the State alleges multiple mens reas but no facts constituting recklessness, and the charge survives a motion to quash, the next battle is over the jury charge: since the State didn&#039;t allege facts constituting recklessness, the jury should not be charged on that mens rea.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two unpublished Dallas cases do not an evisceration make.</p>
<p><i>Crawford,</i> on which <i>Thai’s</i> assertion that the State need not allege reckless facts if it also pleads knowledge or intent is based, is interesting in what it lacks: any discussion of the jury charge. If the State alleges multiple mens reas but no facts constituting recklessness, and the charge survives a motion to quash, the next battle is over the jury charge: since the State didn’t allege facts constituting recklessness, the jury should not be charged on that mens rea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Pelowski</title>
		<link>http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html/comment-page-1#comment-24972</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Pelowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/08/ccp-21-15.html#comment-24972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Case law has eviscerated the usefulness of this provision for ABI cases:

Where the information charging the defendant with assault of a family member alleged that the defendant &quot;intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by hitting her in the face,&quot; the information complied with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 by informing the defendant of the act upon which the State intended to rely. State v. Leavitt, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6468 (Tex. App. Dallas July 25 2006).

Where the information charging the defendant with assault of a family member alleged that the defendant &quot;intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by hitting her in the face,&quot; the information complied with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 by informing the defendant of the act upon which the State intended to rely. State v. Leavitt, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6468 (Tex. App. Dallas July 25 2006).

On a charge of assautl, the State was not required under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 to set forth specific facts supporting the allegation of recklessness in the charging instrument because the State alleged other culpable mental states along with recklessness. Long Xuan Thai v. State, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6056 (Tex. App. Dallas Aug. 1 2007).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Case law has eviscerated the usefulness of this provision for ABI cases:</p>
<p>Where the information charging the defendant with assault of a family member alleged that the defendant “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by hitting her in the face,” the information complied with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 by informing the defendant of the act upon which the State intended to rely. State v. Leavitt, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6468 (Tex. App. Dallas July 25 2006).</p>
<p>Where the information charging the defendant with assault of a family member alleged that the defendant “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by hitting her in the face,” the information complied with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 by informing the defendant of the act upon which the State intended to rely. State v. Leavitt, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6468 (Tex. App. Dallas July 25 2006).</p>
<p>On a charge of assautl, the State was not required under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.15 to set forth specific facts supporting the allegation of recklessness in the charging instrument because the State alleged other culpable mental states along with recklessness. Long Xuan Thai v. State, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6056 (Tex. App. Dallas Aug. 1 2007).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
