Farmer, Kody William
411 S.W.3d 901 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2013
Facts
Kody William Farmer, suffering from chronic back pain, took Ultram and Soma for years. Four days before the incident, he was prescribed Ambien for insomnia, to be taken at night. His wife laid out his Ultram and Ambien on the microwave, separating them for morning and night use. The morning of the incident, Farmer's wife noticed the Ambien she laid out for the night was gone. Farmer admitted he did not have normal use of his faculties and testified he thought he took Soma, not Ambien, stating he did not intentionally or voluntarily take Ambien but guessed it was by mistake. Blood tests later confirmed Ambien in his system. He was subsequently convicted of driving while intoxicated.
Procedural history
Appellant was convicted of DWI after the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on voluntariness. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals twice reversed his conviction, finding he was entitled to such an instruction. This Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine if Appellant was entitled to a voluntariness instruction.
Issue
Was there sufficient evidence at trial to entitle Appellant to a jury-charge instruction on voluntariness regarding his ingestion of Ambien before driving while intoxicated? This Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine if Appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on the issue of voluntariness.
Holding
No, the trial court properly denied Appellant's request for a jury instruction on voluntariness. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Rule
Under Texas Penal Code § 6.01(a), a person commits an offense only if they voluntarily engage in conduct, including an act. Driving while intoxicated is a strict liability crime, requiring only a voluntary act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, not a specific mental state regarding intoxication. Voluntariness refers to one's own physical body movements, and a movement is involuntary only if it's a nonvolitional result of someone else's act, independent non-human force, physical reflex, or product of unconsciousness. The proper inquiry is whether the accused voluntarily picked up and ingested the medication, not whether they mistakenly took the wrong one, as a voluntary act comprising a portion of the offense is sufficient. Mistake of fact is not a defense for strict liability crimes like DWI because it does not negate a required mental state.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.