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.

Intoxication for PI is Higher than Intoxication for DWI

April 24, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

For the state to convict you of public intoxication, or PI for short, they must prove your level of intoxication is even higher than it would be for a DWI.

Here’s why:  Texas Penal Code 49.01(2) defines intoxicated (in relevant part) as, “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body…”

The above definition of 49.01(2) is the definition used for Driving While Intoxicated in 49.04.

Here’s the difference, though — PI is governed by 49.02 and that code specifically says, “a person commits an offense if the person appears in a pubic place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.”

In other words, not only does the person have to be intoxicated (defined by 49.01(2)), but they ALSO must be so to the degree they may “endanger the person or another.”

A simple way of putting it is that to be convicted of DWI, a person must have consumed alcohol to the extent they are dangerous behind the wheel of the car — to get a PI, they must be dangerous merely by being in public.  Obviously it makes sense that there is a stricter standard for operating a motor vehicle.

Public Intoxication cases are class c misdemeanors — meaning they’re lower offenses than DWI.  PI arrests are highly subjective and frankly often done for crowd control reasons or even in cases where the passenger in a car is highly intoxicated (and the driver is getting hooked-up for DWI).  Many officers know that their arrests may very well not end up in convictions, but they feel they are necessary anyway and are supported by the lower burdens of probable cause.

*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, you should directly consult an attorney.

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