George v. Texas (original by judge slaughter)
Annotate this CaseAppellant Anthony George was convicted of capital murder in the course of a robbery. One of the theories of Appellant’s liability for capital murder was a conspiracy theory under Penal Code Section 7.02(b) for an offense committed by a co-conspirator. The facts at trial showed that Appellant and three others entered into an agreement to rob the victim in his hotel room. The victim was later found dead in his hotel bed, having been severely beaten, bound, and left unconscious lying face-down in a pool of his own blood. On direct appeal, Appellant challenged the trial court’s refusal of a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery, arguing that testimony from two of his co- conspirators suggested that he did not participate in the beating and only intended to rob the victim. Based on this evidence, he argued that the jury could have rationally concluded that he should not have anticipated the murder and, therefore, robbery was a valid alternative to the charged offense. In upholding the refusal of the lesser-included-offense instruction, the court of appeals appeared to create a bright-line rule applicable to conspirator-liability capital- murder-in-the-course-of-a-robbery cases. Appellant challenged the court of appeals’ decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, who rejected the applicability of this type of bright-line rule. The Court agreed, however, with the court of appeals’ ultimate conclusion that Appellant was not entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction on robbery based on the particular facts presented here. "The record contains no evidence that rationally refutes the conclusion that Appellant should have anticipated the victim’s murder, and the totality of the circumstances objectively show that the murder was reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, robbery was not a valid, rational alternative to the charged capital murder."
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.