Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 11, 2016.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Diko v. State, No. 02-15-00099-CR, (Apr. 14, 2016) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:  Sections 19.02(b)(1) and 19.02(b)(2) of the penal code do not describe different offenses, but simply set forth alternative means of committing the same offense, murder. Thus, there was no jury charge error when the charge required unanimity as to whether Appellant committed the act of murder, but did not require unanimity as to the means of committing that offense.

Dissent:  As discussed in the Bundy dissent, the trial court reversibly erred by not charging the two mutually exclusive murder offenses separately to ensure a unanimous verdict.