In 1995 the legislature changed the wording regarding who is injured in an evading arrest. Does the word another in 38.04(b)(2)(B) include the police being injured?

I see no reason why "another" would have any meaning other than that specified in 1.07(a)(5), which would include the officer(s) involved in the chase or attempt to apprehend. I do not believe there are any cases deciding the issue one way or the other. You could always consider charging the offense as aggravated assault as well.

That is what we think, but again the legislature used poor wording because when reading the statute as a whole it appears they mean someone other than the police officer. Legislative history shows the purpose they changed the wording from a police officer is injured to another is to include innocent third parties. Originally it said a person - would have been better if they had left that wording instead of saying another since applying 1.07 would be easier. (Best wording would be any person other than the actor is seriously injured - but I guess that is too logical)

I just had the same situation arise -- suspect evades arrest (on foot). Officer is injured (a tendon in his arm snapped in two) while trying to physically capture/restrain him. I did a search on lexis & found nothing new. Just thought I'd see what everyone else thought or if anyone knew about any new cases.

Thanks for any help/suggestions you can provide.

If my memory serves, the change was made because an officer was injured and died while chasing an evading defendant. I believe the officer fell and drowned. At the time, the law didn't cover the injury. So, the change was made to hold the defendant responsible for the death.

Our officer was happy to know the suspect will be facing a felony charge rather than just a misdemeanor evading. He's having a lot of problems with that arm & will have to have several surgeries to try to fix it. Thanks.