## Facts

- Kenneth Lee Chennault was targeted in an undercover “murder-for-hire” operation involving DPS Officer Wayne (Winston) Padgett.
- Chennault met Padgett on April 8, 1981 and offered $2,500 for Padgett to kill an individual; Chennault described the intended victim and explained he would not pay in advance due to prior failed attempts.
- A later meeting in Houston did not occur because Chennault arrived early, saw Padgett with another man, became suspicious, and left.
- Chennault called Padgett again on April 11 to provide additional identifying details about the intended victim, later alleged to be Lawrence Perry McGinnes.
- On April 20, Chennault called off the plan.
- Chennault’s defense at trial was that he “played along” because he believed Padgett worked for McGinnes, and he lacked intent to have anyone killed.
- A jury convicted Chennault of solicitation of capital murder and assessed five years’ confinement.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove solicitation of capital murder, including identifying the intended victim and proving intent.
2. Whether the trial court erred by permitting a defense-called witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Whether allowing the jury to have admitted tape recordings during deliberations violated Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.28.
4. Whether the trial court erroneously overruled an objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument as contrary to the jury charge.
5. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested jury instruction tied to the defense theory of lack of intent/renunciation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals overruled all grounds of error and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the evidence sufficient: the intended victim could be identified by description, and intent could be inferred from Chennault’s conduct and statements.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing a witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege where answers posed a real risk of self-incrimination.
- The court held the jury’s access to the admitted tape recordings during deliberations did not violate article 36.28 because the recordings were exhibits, not read-back testimony.
- The court concluded the prosecutor’s argument did not warrant reversal in light of the charge and the permissible scope of jury argument.
- The court held the requested instruction was properly refused because the charge adequately stated the law and the request was not required on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- In solicitation prosecutions, the intended victim need not be named if the evidence permits the factfinder to identify the intended target with reasonable certainty from description and circumstances.
- Solicitation intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including offering remuneration, repeated contacts, detailed instructions, and timing of any withdrawal; credibility conflicts are for the jury.
- A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment when there is a real and appreciable danger of self-incrimination; trial courts have discretion in evaluating the claim.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.28 governs read-back of testimony, not the jury’s review of properly admitted exhibits such as audio recordings.
- Improper jury argument warrants reversal only when it materially misstates law or evidence and causes substantial prejudice when viewed in the context of the charge and trial as a whole.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Chennault’s solicitation of capital murder conviction, holding that the State proved intent and the intended victim’s identity through descriptions and surrounding circumstances, and that the trial court committed no reversible error regarding a witness’s Fifth Amendment claim, jury access to admitted recordings, closing argument, or refusal of a requested instruction.


Chennault v. State, 667 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984)