Daniel Remsburg v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-06-00155-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 30, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Daniel Remsburg appealed his conviction for evading arrest or detention, asserting two points of error: the trial court's failure to define "serious bodily injury" in the jury charge and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the deadly-weapon finding. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. 

During the incident, Remsburg's vehicle nearly collided with a bystander and later posed a danger to Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Greg Wilson, who narrowly avoided injury during a struggle. The jury found Remsburg guilty and determined that he used his vehicle as a deadly weapon, elevating his offense to a third-degree felony, resulting in a five-year prison sentence without a fine.

Regarding the jury charge, the court noted that the definition of "serious bodily injury" could have been beneficial, but it first had to establish whether an error occurred. The trial court is required to provide a charge that outlines applicable law without expressing its opinion on evidence weight. The appellate court referenced previous cases to clarify the process of determining jury charge errors and the preservation of such errors for appeal. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court's omission did not constitute error warranting a reversal of the conviction.

Reversal of a trial court's judgment is warranted only if errors in the record harmed the defendant's rights or resulted in an unfair trial. Harm must be actual, not theoretical. Remsburg did not object to the lack of definition for "serious bodily injury" during the trial, which typically necessitates an evaluation of whether the error harmed his rights or denied him a fair trial. The record shows no evidence or argument from trial counsel that the vehicle used by Remsburg posed a serious risk of bodily injury or death. Remsburg's appellate brief failed to demonstrate actual harm from the trial court's omission of a term not included in the indictment, leading to the conclusion that his claims were based on theoretical harm. The court overruled this issue due to inadequate briefing.

Regarding the second point of error, Remsburg claimed the evidence was insufficient to establish that he endangered another person with his vehicle while fleeing. In evaluating factual sufficiency, the court considers whether the evidence supporting the verdict is weak enough to render it clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Testimony from Lawrence indicated that he observed suspicious activity near a store and witnessed police officers approach a suspect. When the suspect reversed his vehicle, he nearly hit one officer and subsequently fled, driving directly towards Lawrence, who narrowly avoided a collision by moving his truck. This evidence supported the jury's finding that Remsburg's actions with the vehicle endangered others.

Officer Shane Stone from the Paris Police Department was dispatched to the 9th Street Grocery Store and arrived in uniform and a marked police vehicle. Upon arrival, he found two other officers at the scene and a gold vehicle with its headlights off. Stone observed the driver of the gold vehicle flee, prompting him to pursue while issuing a "be-on-the-lookout" alert. However, he lost sight of the vehicle, which was later spotted by Trooper Wilson traveling at 66 miles per hour in a 60 miles per hour zone. After Wilson stopped the vehicle, the driver, later identified as Remsburg, refused to exit and attempted to flee again, prompting Wilson to jump inside the vehicle to avoid being run over.

The vehicle ultimately ended up in a ditch, and Remsburg was arrested. The jury was allowed to conclude that Remsburg's actions constituted ongoing efforts to evade arrest, supported by case law indicating that evading arrest can be a continuous crime. The jury could also determine that Remsburg's actions posed a significant risk of death or serious bodily injury to Wilson and that his conduct nearly endangered another vehicle. Remsburg’s appeal did not present evidence contradicting the jury's verdict, leading to the affirmation of the trial court’s judgment by Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss, III. The document notes that Remsburg violently resisted arrest, and it includes statements regarding Lawrence’s charitable activities related to furniture collection and repair.