I read this verbatim except where noted otherwise to the jury:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the State
present its evidence and the state’s opening argument that revenge is not a
The Prosecutor can say the word revenge all day long but he
can’t prove it by legal elements under the law in
But there is a defense to a particular crime under the Texas Penal Code called Criminal Responsibility in chapters 6 and 7.
(Upon a sustained objection of the Prosecutor, I was not permitted to refer to the code sections of the Texas Penal Code and I asked the judge that if I left those cites out would that cure my opening argument, and he said, yes)
Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.04 entitled CAUSATION: CONDUCT & RESULTS I, the Defendant, Ronald F. Avery am innocent if:
I can show that the conduct or actions of other witnesses is sufficient, in itself, to produce the result, damage to a window at the office of GBRA, and that my own actions if taken alone are clearly insufficient to cause that damage then I, the Defendant, cannot be found guilty by law in Texas.
If I can show by evidence that employees at GBRA Intentionally Inflicted Emotional Distress on me, which is a crime and cause of action in the State of Texas, which resulted in an emotional outburst that damaged a window at the office of GBRA then I must be found innocent.
Now unlike the Prosecutor with no elements to show in law, I must prove some things to you. I must prove that:
Each one of the four elements just mentioned have legal definitions which must be shown by evidence.
First, to prove intent I must show that GBRA employees had a conscious desire to act in a way which caused me to have emotional distress. I believe that the evidence will go beyond intent and up to a higher level of either reckless disregard or criminal negligence. You will be given a definition of these in the charge from the judge.
Secondly, in order to prove that the conduct of GBRA employees was extreme and outrageous I may show that they harassed me, insulted me, breached existing relationships and understandings with me and that they had motive to do these things. I may also show that they abused a relationship with me that gave an apparent authority over me to effect my interest. I may further show that GBRA knew I was susceptible to emotional distress relating to my property. I believe that the evidence will prove that they went beyond mere outrageous actions by committing other crimes against me, upon showing the elements of criminal trespass on my property.
Thirdly, to prove that the conduct of GBRA employees actually caused my emotional distress, I may show that they could have foreseen the result of their actions and that no other cause led to my emotional distress outside their actions. But I believe the facts and evidence will show that GBRA employees knew that their actions on my property would cause mental and emotional anguish and distress.
Fourthly, to show that the emotional distress was severe I may show mental reactions, painful emotions, embarrassment, fright, grief, shame, humiliation, worry, emotional outburst, stress, anxiety, and even a chemical imbalance presumed by others, etc. Yes and I may also show that the crime I am charged with here today is also the fruit thereof.
All of this comes under the defense theory of Criminal Responsibility. To show that GBRA employees are Criminally Responsible for my conduct I must show the following additional elements:
First, to show that GBRA employee action was voluntary, I may show that no other person forced them to either take inappropriate action or failures to act where they had an obligation and duty. I believe the factual evidence will show that they acted in the commission of crimes and failed to act where they had a clear duty to mitigate the effects of their crimes and did so voluntarily.
Secondly, to show GBRA employees are blameworthy or culpable in their minds, I may show evidence of their intent, their knowledge, recklessness and negligence. I believe the facts will show the highest level of culpability.
Thirdly, to show GBRA conduct caused the result, I may show the elements of their intentional infliction of Emotional Distress on me.
If I can show that GBRA employees are Criminally Responsible for the damage to the window under prosecution today it is no defense for them that:
Therefore, if it be shown that their acts are responsible, it is no defense that they did not intend to break a window at their office.
Here is my main defense theory provided by the Texas Penal Code Chapter 6 § 6.04 and also found in Umoja v. State 965 S.W.2d. 3, 9 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1997, no pet.):
Now there is a test to determine if a party is Criminally Responsible by his own acts or the acts of another for whom he is Criminally Responsible:
The trial court should first remove from consideration the acts and conduct of the non-defendant (GBRA) then, if the evidence of the conduct of the defendant then on trial would be sufficient, in and of itself, to sustain the conviction, no submission of the law of principals (parties) is required.. on the other hand if the evidence introduced upon trial shows, or raises an issue, that the conduct of Defendant then on trial is not sufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a conviction, the state’s case rests upon the law of principals (parties) and is dependent, at least in part, upon the conduct of another. In such cases the law of principals must be submitted and made applicable to the facts of the case.
That is to say the state must show that I intended to damage a window at GBRA without any of the acts of GBRA or its employees. I believe that it cannot be shown by any facts that I had any motive, desire, intent, or interest in breaking a window without the emotional distress caused by GBRA employees.
Further if it be shown that the employees of GBRA are
criminally responsible in their activities in an official capacity, then GBRA
itself is Criminally Responsible even as a immune party or arm of the state of
Finally I must add that it is not necessary to prove that
GBRA or its employees completed all the elements of a cause of action against
them for Criminal Trespass on my property
to show that they intentionally inflicted emotional distress on me resulting in
the damage in question today. However, I believe the evidence will show facts
that would support a cause of action against GBRA and its employees in
I believe that the evidence will show facts that will
support an action for trespass if GBRA and its employees were not protected by adopted
ancient monarchial common law repugnant to the constitution of
Now I cannot close my opening argument without bringing up
one more point. The parties that I will show are really criminally responsible
are the same parties that filed the complaint being tried here today. And I
should remind you also that this same group that could be criminally
responsible, claim to have ‘sovereign immunity’ from prosecution in either
civil or criminal court except where they have agreed to it. And further
consider that GBRA is a state agency under state protection and that the case
against me is being prosecuted by the state of
You will not have to remember all these things I just said in this opening argument as you listen to evidence because when the judge issues the charge to the jury there will be definitions of all these elements and terms. Now just try to sit back and enjoy listening to the evidence which I hope you may find most intriguing.
Thank you very much.