# Medina v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 6, 1999 · 7 S.W.3d 633

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690557

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Shawn MEDINA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 6, 1999
- **Citations:** 7 S.W.3d 633; 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108; 1999 WL 791567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Keller, McCormick, Mansfield, Price, Holland, Johnson, Keasler, Meyers, Womack
- **Cited by:** 556 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690557

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding ―the following combined evidence was sufficient to permit a rational jury to infer that [the witness] was a party to the crime, and hence, raise[d] a fact issue as to [the witness’s] accomplice status: (1) [the witness’s] presence in the car with appellant when the cri…
- stating that for “knowing murders, the distinction between result of conduct and nature of conduct blurs because awareness of the result of the conduct necessarily entails awareness of the nature of the conduct as well. . . . To be aware that his conduct is reasonably certain …
- explaining that when the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction under at least one theory of the offense, the harmfulness of error in the charge is measured against the likelihood the jury’s verdict is based on a theory not affected by the erroneous parts of the charge
- concluding defendant was not entitled to lesser-included offense instruction where evidence showed that defendant intentionally fired into crowd, and finding lack of intent to kill any particular person was insufficient to warrant instruction on lesser- included offense
- holding that there was sufficient evidence to ”raise[ ] a fact issue” as to one witness’s accomplice status, thereby requiring accomplice-witness instruction for that witness, but finding evidence insufficient to warrant instruction as to other witnesses

## Opinion text

MEYERS, J.,
concurs with note:
Under the specific facts of this particular case, I agree that the error presented in point of error ten, in misdefining “knowingly” was not egregious. However, I cannot agree that a “knowing murder” under Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), which is defined by caselaw as a result of conduct offense, is also always by definition, a nature of conduct offense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690557. Public record. Not legal advice.