IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00265-CR

Reginald Hooper,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 217th District Court

Angelina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24533

          Call me, along with 12 jurors and the trial court, irrational.

          Hooper was driving the getaway car.  After Hooper knew he was being followed by law enforcement, his driving became somewhat erratic until he slowed and suddenly stopped before the following officer even activated his emergency lights.  During this time it is undisputed that two other persons were in the car, concealing themselves from public view, one in the front side passenger area.  The one in the front side passenger area exited the car, gun in hand, and shot at the officer, a game warden, who had pulled up behind them.  By stopping the car at the time, manner, and location that he did, Hooper is the one who chose the timing and location of the ensuing gun battle between the front seat passenger and the game warden.

          I think the inferences necessary to affirm the conviction for aggravated assault of a public servant are reasonable and firmly supported by this record.  Thus, I totally disagree with the majority opinion and judgment and, more specifically, the statement by the majority that “Hooper’s conduct during and after the stop … was directly inconsistent with one who should have anticipated or in fact did anticipate Nicholson’s shooting.”  If that were the case, it would have been entirely reasonable to expect Hooper to pull into his mother’s driveway and stop for milk and cookies and his afternoon nap.

          I dissent.

                                                          TOM GRAY

                                                          Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed July 13, 2005

Publish