Gary Smith Case

1799 Words8 Pages
In the case of Gary Smith v. the State of Texas, Mr. Smith has been indicted under the Texas Penal Code, Section 19.04. This section of the Texas Penal Code is defined as criminal homicide, in Mr. Smith's case he was arrested for manslaughter which is recklessly causing the death of an individual. Under the conditions of the testimony by Clarence Reid and the Coroner’s Autopsy Report, and statement from the police report, there are subjective reasons to charge Mr. Smith with manslaughter. Mr. Reid's statement included his relationship with Perkins, as well as his acquaintance with Mr. Smith's son Jeb. The three men went to High School together where Mr. Reid stated young Mr. Smith and Mr. Perkins got into an altercation at a football game…show more content…
Smith committed this crime under Mens Rea. He acted upon firing his gun once he stated "when I heard the noise I suspected criminal activity so I got my 9mm handgun and went downstairs". His confession is direct evidence that he acted in a reckless way. He suspected criminal activity in which caused this state of guilty mind to act upon firing his weapon. This caused him to create a conscious risk. In this case in point, Mr. Smith was subjectively at fault because his mind was on recent burglaries and he knowingly had a weapon but recklessly used it. 2 non-fatal shots to the left arm could've stopped the victim, but the 1 fatal shot to the head caused his death; as if Mr. Smith had a specific intent to kill the perpetrator on his property. This intent was reckless in the sense that he was aware that there have been recent burglaries, but he used his deadly weapon in a guilty mind to kill someone because they were on his property. The causation of the murder of Mr. Perkins was a factual cause, leading to the evidence that the defendant chose to bring his 9mm handgun outside to find a burglar who might be in the act of either breaking into his home or his truck. Also there was indirect circumstantial evidence of him firing his gun about 4 feet from the victim, recklessly committing manslaughter. Jimmy Perkins, the victim of the homicide, had 2 non-fatal shots to his left arm and 1 fatal shot to his head on the left side, toward the front of the skull.…show more content…
Smith's defense, he had the necessity to defend himself in an imminent danger of attack to prevent the perpetrator from harming him. There was an object in Mr. Perkin's possession, and since it was reasonably dark outside, the defendant couldn't tell what that object was so he took immediate action to fire shots at Mr. Perkins. The statement's from Mr. Smith put forward "he threw an object up into the air in my direction... I couldn't tell what it was, and I felt my life and the life of my family was in danger". There was proportionality to believe that victim was trying to use deadly force towards Mr. Smith. This caused Mr. Smith to believe the victim was trying to harm him. Since that object was being thrown into the direction of Mr. Smith, there was an instinct to immediately act upon taking shots at the perpetrator at that "right now" instance. It prevented the perpetrator to break into the family home, and also to break into Mr. Smith's truck parked outside as well. The prevention was substantial due to there being recent burglaries in the past, so the immediate response to hearing the loud truck noises by Mr. Smith's home was for him to investigate and act upon it
Open Document