## Facts

- Louis Earl Goodman, a driller with about 25 years’ experience, supervised an evening crew on a gas drilling rig in Denton County, Texas.
- The crew discussed “initiating” a new worker, Shawn Davis, by hoisting him using rig equipment.
- Davis resisted wearing a derrick belt; Goodman and another crew member wrestled Davis and put the belt on him.
- Goodman brought a cat line (rope/cable/chain with hook used for lifting equipment) and hooked it to Davis’s derrick belt while the kelly was rotating at high speed on the rig floor.
- A co-worker observed the setup and viewed it as unsafe because slack in the cat line could be caught by the rotating kelly.
- The cat line became entangled in the kelly, pulling Davis toward it; Davis was spun and struck equipment, and he died at the scene.
- Goodman acknowledged he knew cat lines were dangerous and was aware of prior cat-line accidents; he also testified he immediately realized he should not have attached the cat line and tried to undo it.
- A jury convicted Goodman of manslaughter and assessed 18 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a lesser-included-offense instruction on criminally negligent homicide.
2. Whether a fatal variance existed between the indictment’s alleged manner and means of causing death and the proof at trial.
3. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove manslaughter (recklessly causing death).

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held Goodman was not entitled to a criminally negligent homicide instruction because the record did not permit a rational finding that he was guilty only of criminal negligence.
- The court found no fatal variance because the proof substantially matched the charged manner and means and did not impair notice or double-jeopardy protections.
- The court held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding of recklessness.

## Legal Principles

- Manslaughter requires proof that the defendant recklessly caused death, meaning awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and conscious disregard of that risk.
- Criminally negligent homicide requires proof that the defendant ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk but was actually unaware; it involves a gross deviation from ordinary care.
- A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction only if (1) the lesser offense is included within the proof of the charged offense and (2) some evidence would allow a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser offense.
- A variance warrants reversal only if it is material and prejudices substantial rights, including adequate notice and protection against double jeopardy.
- Evidence supporting recklessness may include the defendant’s experience, knowledge of similar hazards, supervisory role, and statements or conduct showing contemporaneous recognition of danger.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Goodman’s manslaughter conviction because the evidence showed he was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk of attaching a cat line to a person near a rotating kelly, defeating a request for a criminally negligent homicide instruction; the indictment matched the proof in all material respects, and the record supported the verdict.


Goodman v. State, 190 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006)