## Facts

- Bobby Ray Rogers and his estranged wife, Debra Rogers, were separated but continued seeing each other and frequently argued.
- On the day of the shooting, Debra picked up Rogers, they bought beer and groceries, and went to Debra’s mother’s home, where Rogers cooked dinner.
- Later, in Debra’s bedroom, the couple argued about Rogers’s relationship with his first wife.
- Debra kept a loaded handgun in her bedroom; Rogers testified Debra grabbed the gun and threatened to shoot him.
- Rogers testified that during a struggle over the gun it discharged, fatally shooting Debra; he admitted firing the shot but claimed it occurred accidentally during the struggle.
- Rogers was charged with murder and tried before a jury.
- Defense counsel requested a jury instruction on “accident”; the trial court refused, and counsel did not request a specific instruction on voluntary conduct or involuntary act.
- The jury convicted Rogers of murder and the court imposed a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether a request for an “accident” instruction is equivalent to requesting an instruction on the statutory requirement of voluntary conduct (absence of an involuntary act).
2. Whether the “accident” request preserved jury-charge error concerning omission of a voluntary-conduct instruction, determining whether “some harm” or “egregious harm” review applies.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that “accident” and “involuntary act” are different defensive theories and are not interchangeable for jury-charge purposes.
- The court ruled the trial judge was not required to treat an “accident” request as a request for a voluntary-conduct instruction; the claim was not preserved because the request was not specific.
- Because the voluntariness complaint was not preserved, the intermediate appellate court erred in applying the Almanza “some harm” standard.
- The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Texas law does not recognize “accident” as a standalone defense; “accident” arguments are addressed through the offense elements (including culpable mental state) and, when raised and requested, the statutory requirement of voluntary conduct.
- An “accident” theory ordinarily disputes intent or mens rea (lack of intent to cause the result), while an “involuntary act” theory disputes whether the defendant’s bodily movement was voluntary.
- Preservation of jury-charge error requires a timely, specific request or objection that clearly identifies the instruction sought; a generic or outdated label does not preserve a different statutory complaint.
- Under Almanza, preserved charge error is reviewed for “some harm,” while unpreserved charge error is reviewed for “egregious harm.”

## Conclusion

The court held that an “accident” instruction request does not preserve a complaint that the jury charge omitted a voluntary-conduct instruction because the theories differ, and without a specific request or objection the reviewing court may not apply preserved-error (“some harm”) analysis.


Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)