Humanities. POSC 2314- Introduction to Legal Studies: Legal Studies: Library Resources

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

June 23, 1995, Decided

No. 94-20838
Overview
Appellant, infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was convicted of attempted murder for spitting on a prison guard. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court claiming: 1) that appellee government unconstitutionally failed to prove an element of attempted murder at trial because there was no evidence that spitting by an HIV-infected person "tends to" cause death. Second, appellant claimed that the trial court's charge to the jury was constitutionally inadequate because it allowed the jury to convict him without proof of the "tends to" element. The district court denied the petition, on grounds the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Appellant sought review. The court affirmed finding inter alia, that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that HIV transmission through saliva and spitting was possible, and the court would not disturb the jury's conclusions. Further, the instructions taken together were sufficient to apprise the jury that the an attempted murder conviction depended upon proof of the possibility of HIV transmission through saliva or spitting.

Green v. Harris Cty. Inst. of Forensic Scis., 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3486
Export Citation

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

May 6, 2021, Opinion Issued

NO. 01-20-00357-CV
HOLDINGS: [1]-A trial court did not err by granting a plea to the jurisdiction by the county forensic science institute, medical examiner (ME), and prosecutor because the claims, brought by a man convicted of murdering his wife, were not against the ME individually but in his official capacity and so they were barred by sovereign immunity, as were the claims against county forensics and the prosecutor; [2]-None of the claims alleged entitled the man to waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act because they were all intentional torts, for which there was no immunity waiver in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057(2); [3]-Nor was the man entitled to equitable relief as he presented no evidence from a credible person to dispute the ME's findings.