In re Texas ex rel David Weeks (Original)
Annotate this CaseThis mandamus action arose from a capital-murder prosecution that reached the jury-charge portion of the guilt stage of trial. The trial judge's proposed charge would have submitted to the jury the "conspiracy" theory of the law of parties but not the "intent to promote or assist" theory of the law of parties. In submitting the "conspiracy" theory, the trial judge's proposed charge would have required the State to prove that the defendant should have anticipated the particular manner and means by which his co-conspirator killed the victim. The State sought the writ of mandamus to require the submission of the "intent to promote or assist" theory and to require the submission of the "conspiracy" theory without any manner-and-means restriction. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief: with respect to the "intent to promote or assist" theory, the court of appeals concluded that the trial judge's "assessment of the evidence to determine whether it supported the inclusion of an instruction under section 7.02(a) in the court's charge was not a ministerial act, but rather an exercise of [his] judgment and judicial determination" and "to the extent that there is a dispute about the state of the evidence, [the Supreme Court] may not resolve it in an original mandamus proceeding." Irrespective of the indictment's manner-and-means allegation, no statutory or case law supported its inclusion. Furthermore, two of the recognized criminal pattern jury charge books did not include it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and ordered the court of appeals to grant mandamus relief directing the trial court to submit the theory of party liability in the jury charge without requiring the State to show that the defendant should have anticipated the particular method by which the murder was carried out. The writ of mandamus would issue only in the event that the court of appeals failed to comply with this opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.