I've got a situation where a disabled man was robbed and taken to a deserted area, hit in the head with a bat (non-lethal but was sbi), and left alone. Although he was able to get to a public road, he later died as a result of exposure essentially. I'm considering what to charge (capital, straight murder, felony murder, agg robbery, kidnapping,...) and specifically how to allege the exposure manner and means in a homicide indictment. I'm concerned about proving the intent to kill in a cap murder... although it was a truly heinous situation. Any ideas on what and how to charge?

I don't know all of your facts. But I am curious as to just how "disabled" the victim happend to be.

While my opinion might change depending on the specific facts of your case; generally, it seems to me that when a criminal commits a robbery against a moderately to severely disabled person, then kidnaps the victim, takes them to a remote area, smacks them on the head with a baseball bat causing serious bodily injury, and then just abandons them there in the middle of nowhere, the criminal has left little doubt about the result that he or she consciously or objectively desired with regard to the victim.

I'm certainly leaning that way myself. I suppose the intent issue worries me a bit because I've never really had much of a hurdle to jump in my previous capital cases re intent to kill. I can anticipate the defense argument that the crook could have gone ahead and killed him immediately at the crime scene if he had intended to kill him. But then again, I should certainly be able to argue that the intent to kill is the only reasonable intent shown by the facts and circumstances, and the crook just meant for the victim to "die a slow death..." Thanks for your input!

19.02 (b)(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury (umm smacking in head with bat) and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life (leaves injured disabled guy in field in cold)that cause death (will your ME give you taht?) Skip 19.02 (a) and the intent issue entirely.

You can also use same issues with 19.02 (c), felony murder, if you think intent to cause serious bodily injury is weak.

The mental state of "knowingly" is much more accomodating than "intentionally." We just tried a capital murder case, alleging the defendant reasonably knew that death would result from shoving a taco down the child's throat. The jury convicted on capital with little hesitation. I think there would have been more trouble with an "intentional" state of mind.

I haven't done any exhaustive research but 19.03(a)(2) says that the person "intentionally commits the murder..." I'm afraid I can't go with "knowingly" under that subsection...

Mike, I agree, under your facts and 19.03(2), you've got to prove an intentional killing to get to capital. That's always seemed like such a strange anomoly under the law - that you can knowingly kill a child, a police officer, a cellmate, but not a rape/robbery/kidnapping victim...

However, I think the very reason 19.03(2) is there is, in part, as a reflection of the policy that we want the threat of the needle to discourage these bad guys who commit all these other serious felonies from eliminating the witness/victim. That being the case, I think you can legitimately make the argument "why else would he have whacked him in the head with a bat after the completion of the robbery but to eliminate him as a witness?" As such, how can the result be anything but intentional? Let the defense be the one to make the argument that he took a bat to the guy's head just to daze him or whatever....
I agree it's not a slam dunk on the mental state, but from the facts you have posted, it sure sounds like a case that calls out for a capital charge.