Judge allows state to tell jury assault is a lesser included misdemeanor but bars discussion of punishment range in Aguilar trial

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court ruled that prosecutors may tell jurors the assault counts against Edgar Hernandez Aguilar are lesser included offenses and that the lesser offenses are misdemeanors, but barred the state from discussing punishment ranges during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.

The ruling resolved a defense request that prosecutors be prohibited from referencing punishment or the severity classification of the lesser included offenses while jurors consider guilt. Boyd said her understanding of the law is that the jury’s role during the guilt phase is limited to determining guilt or innocence and not punishment, and she invited parties to point to case law if they disagreed with her reading.

The dispute arose during final pretrial argument and again in closing argument. Defense counsel asked the court to prevent the state from telling jurors the range of punishment or characterizing an offense as a misdemeanor or felony in a way that would affect the jury’s deliberations. The prosecutor opposed a complete bar, saying the state should be allowed to identify the lesser included charge and its classification but not to argue specific punishment ranges.

“I mean, during the first phase of a jury trial, the jury’s only duty is to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty and nothing else,” Judge Boyd told the parties when explaining her ruling.

Boyd announced that the state may state that the assault is a lesser included offense and that it is a misdemeanor, and that is all the state may say regarding that classification. She said the state may not make explicit statements regarding the range of punishment for felonies or misdemeanors during closing argument on guilt. The court left the record open to case law if either side believed the ruling was legally incorrect.

The legal distinction mattered to both sides’ closing arguments. Prosecutors urged jurors to focus on the totality of the conduct — including multiple collisions, the defendant’s return to his vehicle to retrieve a metal rod and damage to the vehicles — and argued those actions showed the vehicle was used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Defense counsel acknowledged the conduct was alarming but urged jurors to view the video evidence and the manner and means alleged; counsel argued the truck was not used as a deadly weapon in a way that would support aggravated assault and asked jurors to consider the lesser included assault option if they were not convinced the vehicle was a deadly weapon.

The court had read the jury charge aloud to jurors; the charge sets out aggravated-assault counts tied to three victims and included, as an alternative, the lesser offense of assault for each count. The incidents alleged in the indictment occurred on or about March 16, 2023, in Bexar County.

The trial proceeded after the ruling and the court prepared the jury to deliberate under the instructions given. The jury will apply the court’s instruction that punishment is not to be considered during the guilt-innocence phase.

Context: The dispute involves how much context jurors may receive about criminal classifications during closing arguments — a question courts frequently resolve to avoid injecting punishment considerations into the guilt phase of a trial.