Is Intoxication a Defense to Criminal Charges in Texas?

June 11, 2010

Texas Penal Code 8.04 covers voluntary intoxication.  That provision says, “Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of a crime.”

Temporary insanity may be caused by intoxication and may be admissible in the punishment phase of a trial to attempt to mitigate.  What this means, in layman’s terms, is that you can only utilize voluntary intoxication to the extent that it can help you in the punishment phase of trial — i.e. after the judge or jury has already decided that you are guilty.

Intoxication in this section of the Penal Code means “disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substances into the body.”

Involuntary intoxication (where perhaps someone was drugged without their knowledge — and then committed a crime) is far more complex.  The law used to be well settled in Texas that involuntary intoxication was an affirmative defense to some crimes, however, in 2002 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defense was encompassed in other defenses — such as not having the proper mens rea in Mendenhall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 815 (Tex.Crim.App.– 2002).

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 562-7549

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about any specific matter you should consult an attorney.

 

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

How Do I Plead Guilty to a Criminal Charge?

June 8, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

texasdefensefirm.com

I hate advising clients to plead guilty.

Hate it!

Some tough-guy lawyers will never admit to advising clients to plead guilty but every criminal defense lawyer I know will admit to not only advising clients to accept a deal but begging or pleading with a client on occasion.  Often the facts are stacked against you or the down-side of taking a case to trial is just too scary for the client.

There is no real difference between a guilty plea and a no-contest plea in Texas, so I’m referring to both in this blawg.

A guilty plea is like a contract in Texas.  Both you and the prosecution sacrifice and gain something by way of agreement (you usually sacrifice a lot more).  You are waiving your rights to trial and all that comes with it… the right to prepare, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross examine… etc.  The State is waiving their “right” to seek a greater punishment and, they would argue, their “right” to a jury trial.  In return, you are getting a specific punishment (which may be deferred adjudication depending on your plea deal) and more importantly — you’re also eliminating variables of what may happen to you at trial.  The State benefits because they get a verdict without a trial.

The plea is subject to approval by the judge.  When you plead guilty, you legally empower the judge to (a) find you guilty and (b) sentence you anywhere within the punishment range.

A Texas judge can do one of three things with a plea.  He can accept it (the vast majority of pleas are accepted — I don’t have stats but I’d be willing to bet it’s 99.5% or even greater).  He can reject the plea, or he can accept the plea and modify terms an conditions of probation assuming the plea includes probation.

If the judge flat-out rejects the plea, then he must inform the defendant he’s rejecting the plea so the defendant can withdraw his plea an assert his right to a trial.  A judge rarely knows any specific fact of your case other than what you are charged with — like a DWI, marijuana case, drug possession with intent to distribute, and so on… and for this reason, the Judge is unlikely to tinker with a deal a lawyer and prosector have worked hard to make happen.

Whether to plead guilty or not guilty is a case-by-case analysis.  I advise clients to fight on certain cases for all sorts of reasons and I advise clients to plead guilty on occasion too — because that may be the best answer or because we’re getting a really good deal under the circumstances.

Your choice to plead guilty or not guilty is an extremely important one.  Don’t make the decision alone — have a licensed attorney experienced in the area of criminal law assist you.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about your specific situation you should consult an attorney.  This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

“No Refusal Weekend” for DWIs in Dallas and Plano

May 30, 2010

Cities around North Central Texas are publicizing their “no refusal” policies this weekend for DWI enforcement in an effort to ramp up law enforcement and discourage impaired driving. Some have issued press releases to the media such as this one. They’re beginning to have these weekends routinely on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor day.

Although the press release doesn’t spell it out, what they are trying to communicate is that if you refuse to submit to the breath test, they’ll simply go to a magistrate that is on standby to get a warrant signed. That warrant will enable them to draw your blood, hence the “no refusal.”

In Texas, the police must be extremely careful not to coerce a person to voluntarily give a breath specimen. When a person is formally offered a breath test, they are done so through documents called dic-23, 24, and 25. Those documents lay out all the dangers and disadvantages of submitting to a breath test.

An officer cannot coerce or intimidate a person into submitting to a breath test in Texas. If an officer alters, amends, adds, or subtracts warnings (generally be editorializing his opinion in some way) about the warnings or what the resulting action may be — then they flirt with having the breath test thrown out under a line of cases called the Erdman doctrine. The vast majority of officers will read the dic warnings in a scripted fashion because they don’t want the results of the test thrown out.

The press release definitely walks a tight rope. They’re trying to curb drunk driving this weekend (which everyone agrees is a good thing). But, by over-publicizing the “no refusal weekend,” it is quite possible that people arrested for DWI submit to the breath test because they fear the police punish a refusal by jamming a needle into their arms. It is interesting, then, that the press release omits any references to warrants, and merely insinuates that medical personnel will just happen to be around.

Maybe they’re afraid some lawyer might try and put the press release into evidence during a trial down line to show the police are just trying to intimidate everyone into submitting to a breath test?

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 562-7549

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For specific legal advice, you should directly consult an attorney.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

DWI Surcharges Clog Texas Courts

April 27, 2010

The Dallas Morning News reports a former State District Judge from Waco, David Hodges, told the Texas Driver Responsibility Program in Austin that the surcharges assessed after DWI convictions were clogging the Courts.  You can read the article here.

Mr Hodges is echoing the opinion of many criminal defense practitioners who believe the punishments for DWI related offenses have become so harsh that it makes more sense to fight DWI charges than to simply give in and plead guilty.  Although the article also focuses on where the money for the DWI surcharges are spent by the state, it is important to note the surcharges that accompany a DWI conviction.  They are:

(1) $1,000 per year for 3 years following a DWI conviction;

(2) $1,500 per year for 3 years following a 2nd DWI conviction; and

(3) $2,000 per year for 3 years following a DWI conviction where the blood/ alcohol concentration was 0.16 or greater.

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 562-7549

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice.  For specific legal advice about your own matters you should consult an attorney. 

2 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

Police and Confirmation Bias

April 27, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Confirmation bias is a psychological phenomenon whereby people have a tendency to selectively prefer information which confirms their pre-existing beliefs and hypotheses.

Why is this important in criminal law?  Because every case involves investigation in one way or another.  Police officers can and do fall into the confirmation bias trap.

Textbook signs of confirmation bias include ignoring evidence that contradicts the initial impression of the officer and interpreting neutral facts or exculpatory facts as evidence of guilt among others.

Psychologists have conducted studies on confirmation bias.  In one study, test subjects were given fake police files which weakly incriminated a particular suspect.  Later evidence showed that perhaps a second suspect was the culprit and that the original information was false.  Not surprisingly, the subjects fell into several confirmation bias traps.  They rejected evidence inconsistent with the innocence of the original suspect, they viewed neutral or ambiguous evidence as evidence of the original suspect’s guilt, and finally the suspects ignored evidence pointing to the guilt of the second suspect in favor of evidence against the first suspect.

I see confirmation bias all the time from law enforcement during investigations.  You can tell when it’s going on in certain opinion-oriented cases such as DWI when you read an offense report which omits or wholly ignores evidence that contradicts the officer’s findings.  Often times police will take neutral facts (like where they describe a person as ‘nervous’ at a traffic stop) and attempt to spin that into evidence of guilt.  Obviously that is non-sense as many people are nervous when confronted by authority figures like a police officer in uniform — not just criminals.

Dealing with confirmation bias takes a skilled trial lawyer.  Jurors must be educated during jury selection about confirmation bias and be show the practical example of confirmation bias in action when the officer holds firm to his opinion despite all the contrary evidence.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For specific legal advice for your own matter you should contact an attorney.

2 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »