## Facts

- Robert Miers and an accomplice, Thorbus, committed an armed robbery at a combination filling station, store, and residence where four people were present.
- The robbers held the occupants at gunpoint and searched for money after the owner refused to disclose where it was hidden.
- During the robbery, the owner attacked Thorbus while the deceased (the owner’s neighbor) sought out Miers.
- The owner’s wife testified that Miers was marching her at gunpoint when the deceased entered, grabbed toward Miers from behind her, and a shot was fired during the ensuing struggle; Miers then fled and the deceased fell.
- Thorbus shot the owner during the melee, but the owner survived.
- A physician testified that a person with a wound like the deceased’s could still engage in a momentary struggle after being shot.
- Miers admitted participation in the robbery but denied intentionally shooting the deceased, claiming he fired to the side to scare him and that the gun discharged accidentally during the struggle, possibly after the deceased gained control of the weapon.

## Issues

1. Whether a robber is guilty of murder when a death occurs during the robbery as a foreseeable result of resistance, even if the fatal shot was accidental or possibly triggered by the victim.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction requiring acquittal if the jury had a reasonable doubt that Miers personally fired the fatal shot.
3. Whether denial of severance from the accomplice was erroneous under Texas criminal procedure rules limiting severance when it would function as a continuance.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder conviction and death sentence.
- The court held that the death was attributable to Miers because his armed robbery set in motion the events that proximately caused the homicide, even if the victim’s resistance contributed to the gun’s discharge.
- The court upheld refusal of the requested “identity of the shooter” instruction because personal trigger-pulling was not required under the causation theory applied.
- The court found no reversible error in denial of severance or related procedural rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A participant in an armed robbery may be held liable for murder when a death occurs as a natural and probable consequence of the felony, based on proximate causation, even if the immediate lethal act is performed by a non-participant resisting the crime.
- Victim resistance to an ongoing armed felony does not, by itself, break the causal chain where the felony created the dangerous situation culminating in death.
- A defendant is not entitled to an acquittal instruction predicated solely on doubt about whether he personally fired the fatal shot when liability rests on participation in the felony and proximate causation.
- Severance may be denied under Texas procedure when granting it would operate as a continuance to either party.

## Conclusion

The court upheld murder liability for a death occurring during an armed robbery on a proximate-cause theory, treating the victim’s resistance and even the possibility that the victim triggered the shot as no defense, and it affirmed the trial court’s refusal to submit an instruction making acquittal turn on whether the defendant personally fired the fatal shot.


Miers v. State, 251 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952)