## Facts

- After drinking at a bar for several hours, Edward Patrick Conroy and three male friends returned to Conroy’s house around 3:00 a.m.
- Several people were already asleep in the house, including Conroy’s wife, niece, and nephew, along with two other friends.
- Conroy called an escort service and requested four women to come to his home.
- When the women arrived, Conroy paid each woman $220 and directed each woman and one of the three men to separate rooms; Conroy stayed in the living room drinking beer.
- Conroy decided it would be funny to burst into the bedrooms with his passport and a handgun, pretending to be a vice officer and announcing that everyone was under arrest.
- Conroy obtained a revolver and removed two bullets “for safety reasons,” but left three live rounds in the revolver.
- Around 5:50 a.m., Conroy moved down the hall and burst into three rooms brandishing the gun, holding up his passport, and telling occupants they were “busted.”
- As Conroy entered the third room, he held the revolver at about waist level and cocked; a shot fired and struck Elissa Anne Roberts in the head, killing her.
- Conroy was charged with murder. At trial, he testified he did not intend to shoot anyone, did not see Roberts when he entered the room, and that the gun discharged by accident.
- Conroy also testified he had prior military and weapons training, and that he knew the gun was loaded and cocked and that his finger was on the trigger when he entered the third room.
- A firearms expert testified the revolver would not discharge accidentally and would fire only if the trigger was pulled.
- The trial court denied Conroy’s requested jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide; the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter and made an affirmative deadly-weapon finding, assessing three years’ confinement.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Conroy acted recklessly, as required for involuntary manslaughter.
2. Whether Conroy was entitled to a requested jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense, and whether the refusal to give that instruction required reversal.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding of recklessness for involuntary manslaughter.
- The court of appeals held the trial court erred by refusing Conroy’s requested instruction on criminally negligent homicide because some evidence would have permitted a rational jury to find him guilty only of that lesser offense.
- The court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Legal sufficiency is reviewed under the Jackson v. Virginia standard: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the question is whether any rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under Texas Penal Code § 6.03(c), a person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur, and the disregard is a gross deviation from ordinary care.
- Evidence supporting recklessness may include the defendant’s knowledge and handling of a loaded firearm, including entering close quarters with others while the gun is cocked and a finger is on the trigger, along with expert testimony that the weapon would fire only if the trigger were pulled.
- A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction when (1) the lesser offense is included within the proof necessary to establish the charged offense, and (2) there is some evidence that, if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.
- Criminally negligent homicide differs from recklessness under § 6.03(d): criminal negligence involves failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the actor should have perceived.
- In deciding whether to submit a lesser-included offense, the trial court considers whether some evidence raises it, without weighing witness credibility.
- When a requested lesser-included instruction is improperly denied, reversal is required if the error caused some harm, particularly where the disputed issue is the defendant’s culpable mental state and the jury was denied a third option between conviction for the greater offense and acquittal.

## Conclusion

Conroy’s conviction was reversed not because the State failed to prove recklessness, but because the jury was not allowed to consider criminally negligent homicide despite evidence that could support a finding that Conroy failed to perceive the risk; the appellate court therefore remanded for a new trial with the proper lesser-included-offense submission.


Conroy v. State, 843 S.W.2d 67 (1992)