Ex parte Rion

662 S.W.3d 890

EX PARTE Christopher RION, Appellant

NO. PD-1096-19

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Delivered: April 6, 2022

Michael Mowla, Duncanville, for Appellant.

Joshua Vanderslice, Brian Higginbotham, for Appellant/State.

OPINION

Walker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Hervey, Richardson, Yeary, Newell, Keel, and McClure, JJ., joined.

We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute this opinion.

Christopher Rion, Appellant, crashed his vehicle into another vehicle, leading to injuries to the other vehicle's driver and the eventual death of its passenger. For that death, Appellant was charged with manslaughter, but the jury found him "not guilty" of that offense and of the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. The State then proceeded to prosecute Appellant for the injuries to the driver on a charge of aggravated assault for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon. Appellant challenged the second prosecution as barred by collateral estoppel.

The court of appeals held that collateral estoppel applied and barred the subsequent prosecution for reckless aggravated assault because the jury in the manslaughter trial decided that Appellant was not reckless in causing the collision, which would be an essential element in the aggravated assault trial. Ex parte Rion , No. 05-19-00280-CR, 2019 WL 4386371, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 13, 2019) (mem. op., not designated for publication).¹

We reverse. Although both trials involve the issue of whether Appellant was reckless, manslaughter and aggravated assault causing bodily injury are "result of conduct" offenses. The results—death and bodily injury—are different, and the culpable mental state of recklessness attaches to those results. By its verdict of "not guilty" in the first trial, the jury necessarily determined that Appellant was not reckless and therefore necessarily determined that Appellant was not aware of a risk of death as a result of his conduct. But the jury did not necessarily determine that Appellant lacked awareness of a risk of bodily injury as a result of his conduct. Collateral estoppel does not prohibit the subsequent prosecution for reckless aggravated assault causing bodily injury.

I — Background

In August 2015, Appellant, driving a Dodge Challenger, crashed into a Toyota Highlander. As a result of the collision, the driver of the Toyota, Claudia Loehr, and the passenger, Claudena Parnell, both suffered injuries. Parnell died several days later at the hospital.

Appellant was charged in two separate indictments. The first charged him with manslaughter for the death of Parnell, and the second charged him with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for the injuries to Loehr. Appellant moved to consolidate both cases for a single trial, but the motion was opposed by the State and denied by the trial court. In April 2018, a jury trial commenced in the manslaughter case.

I(A) — The Manslaughter Trial

As recited by the court of appeals, the State presented the following undisputed facts during the manslaughter trial:

On August 1, 2015 at about 5:30 p.m., an accident occurred on the 5400 block of Arapaho in Dallas at the intersection with Prestonwood involving a Dodge driven by Appellant and a 2006 Highlander driven by [Loehr]. Appellant failed to drive in a single lane of traffic, crossed over into the eastbound lane, jumped the median, and collided into the front of the Highlander.

At the time of impact, Appellant was driving about 71 miles-per-hour. The speed-limit on that section of Arapaho is 40 miles-per-hour.

The impact caused the Highlander to travel backwards about 200 feet and stop[ ] on the sidewalk in the 5500 block of Arapaho. The Highlander was facing westbound and the Dodge was facing southbound. The impact caused non-life-threatening injuries to [Loehr] and life-threatening injuries to [Parnell] who was riding in the front passenger-seat. Four days later, [Parnell] passed away at the Medical Center of Plano.

Rion , 2019 WL 4386371, at *6. After the accident, Appellant was briefly unconscious and had to be pulled out of his vehicle by Douglas Johnson, who witnessed the accident. When Appellant came to, he told Johnson that he (Appellant) needed to leave. Johnson told Appellant he could not leave. Johnson then left Appellant in the care of another man on the scene. Johnson, a physician's assistant, said he checked on Parnell and noted her head was bloodied from hitting the windshield, which shattered during the impact. Johnson said Parnell was initially alert, but over time she became less responsive.

William Cantwell, another witness to the accident, testified that when he approached Appellant after the accident, Appellant said he needed to leave and tried to jump an apartment fence but was pulled down. Cantwell stayed with Appellant until an off-duty Dallas police officer, Gregory Watkins, approached and detained Appellant. Watkins, who had been driving in the area when he came across the accident, called for backup and stayed with Appellant until on-duty officers arrived.

Witnesses observed that Appellant's eyes were dilated after the accident. No signs of alcohol were detected, and Appellant's blood was not tested.² Authorities released Appellant without charge or arrest.

Dr. Jill Urban, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy of Parnell, testified that Parnell died as a result of "blunt-force injuries and/or complications" resulting from the car accident.³ The defense did not dispute that the collision was the cause of death through its cross-examination of Urban, but the defense did have Urban reiterate her conclusion that the manner of death was an accident.

In cross-examining the State's witnesses, the defense did not contest their recollections of events or attempt to undermine their credibility. To support the defense theory that Appellant had a mental break as he was leaving Walmart, where he had gone grocery shopping, defense counsel established through cross-examination of the State's witnesses that no one could dispute Appellant had come from Walmart after having bought groceries there. The defense also elicited testimony from witnesses acknowledging that they did not know why Appellant was speeding that day and that collisions occur for reasons other than a driver being reckless—such as for medical or mental health reasons.

Once the State rested, the defense argued that the State had failed to prove the element of recklessness and moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied.

During the defense's case in chief, the jury heard testimony from Appellant; Dr. Lisa Clayton, a psychiatrist; and Roger Rion, Appellant's father. Appellant, who was forty-three years old when the collision occurred, testified that he began seeing mental health doctors as a nine-year-old. Diagnosed with major anxiety, major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Appellant had been prescribed a variety of medications throughout his life. At the time of the collision, he was prescribed Adderall, Ambien, Lexapro, and Valium. No doctor had told him he could not drive while medicated. Prior to the collision, Appellant had never had a vehicle accident or been in trouble for speeding or drinking and driving. On the day of the collision, Appellant took an Adderall around 6:30 a.m. and a Valium around 10:30 a.m. He left his apartment at about 3:00 p.m. to buy groceries at Walmart.

As he was leaving Walmart, Appellant experienced "mental-health-issue stress" because he was concerned his father, who supported Appellant, would be angry about how much money he spent. Before driving out of the parking lot, Appellant sat in his car for about ten minutes to catch his breath. He was in a bit of panic and knew he needed to get home. As he drove out of the lot, he did not take the same exit that he typically did. Appellant did not know why he took a different exit, and he did not remember driving off. Appellant said he had not been drinking alcohol the day of the accident, and he had not taken or used any drugs not prescribed to him.

Appellant said he passed out during the accident and woke up to Johnson pulling him out of the vehicle. Appellant was in shock and "super paranoid" after the accident. Appellant said he tried to jump the apartment fence because he felt threatened by the crowd and thought the fence would be a good barrier between him and the crowd. He remembered telling an officer on the scene that someone else must have been driving and that he did not remember anything. Afterward, a friend came to pick Appellant up, and his car was towed to a collision repair center. He learned about Parnell's death from his insurance company about a month after the accident. Appellant experienced suicidal thoughts after finding out that he had caused the accident that led to Parnell's death and Loehr's injuries, and he wished it had been him who died instead of Parnell. Appellant, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder after the accident, said he had not driven since the accident and had moved into a shared home with seven roommates who suffer from mental health issues.

Dr. Lisa Clayton, a forensic psychiatrist hired by the defense to evaluate Appellant and provide testimony, told the jury that she had diagnosed Appellant with generalized anxiety disorder with panic attacks, bipolar disorder, and depression. She also noted Appellant had a long diagnostic history of ADHD. According to Clayton, someone suffering from the same types of mental illnesses as Appellant would need to have their medication constantly adjusted to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment. Clayton likened mental illnesses to physical diseases requiring treatment and to be kept under control with medication, such as high blood pressure, cancer, and diabetes.

Clayton explained that during a severe panic...