Aliff v. State, 08-96-00457-CR
| Citation | 955 S.W.2d 891 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-96-00457-CR,08-96-00457-CR |
| Parties | Wesley Gene ALIFF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. K. 'Rusty' Wall, Law Office of J. K. Rusty Wall, Midland, for Appellant.
Al W. Schorre, Jr., District Attorney of Midland County, Midland, for State.
Before LARSEN, McCLURE and CHEW, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. After the jury found Wesley Gene Aliff (Aliff) guilty, the trial court sentenced him to ten (10) years' incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division. Aliff brings two points of error relating to the trial court's refusal to include the defenses of involuntary intoxication and temporary insanity not induced by intoxication.
On September 28, 1995, Lieutenant David Wilks, a Midland police officer, noticed that Aliff was having difficulty remaining stopped at red lights. While waiting at several red lights, Aliff would creep slowly into the intersection forcing traffic to swerve to avoid hitting his vehicle. After observing this behavior for several lights, Lieutenant Wilks decided it was necessary to activate his lights and siren and to stop Aliff. Subsequently, Aliff was arrested by Officer Patrick Mayers. While in the emergency room of a local hospital, Aliff agreed to provide a blood sample. When analyzed, the blood sample revealed the presence of Carisoprodol, Meprobamate, and Alprazolam in Aliff's bloodstream. These were shown to be prescription medications used to treat Aliff's mental illness and back problems.
At trial but before the jury charge was submitted to the jury, counsel for Aliff asked the trial court to include the defenses of involuntary intoxication and temporary insanity not due to intoxication. The trial court denied both requests.
In his first point of error, Aliff contends that the trial court erred by refusing to give his requested jury instruction on the defense of involuntary intoxication. We find there was no evidence raising the issue of involuntary intoxication here, nor would this defense, which applies only to the actor's mental state, have any application in an intoxication prosecution.
Involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal culpability when it is shown that: (1) the accused has exercised no independent judgment or volition in taking the intoxicant; and (2) as a result of his intoxication, the accused did not know that his conduct was wrong or was incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirement of the law he allegedly violated. 1 There was no evidence in the record before us that would raise an issue on the first element of this defense; nothing indicated that Aliff took the intoxicating drugs unknowingly, or without knowledge of their effect. 2 That the drugs were legally prescribed was no defense. 3 Thus, because there was no evidence raising the affirmative defense, the trial court did not err in refusing to accordingly charge the jury. 4
Moreover, involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal culpability. 5 Proof of a culpable mental state is not required in prosecutions for intoxication offenses, including driving while intoxicated. 6 Thus, for both these reasons, we hold Aliff was not entitled to an instruction on involuntary intoxication. Point of Error One is overruled.
In his second point of error, Aliff asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on an insanity defense. We need not decide this matter because Aliff failed to file notice of his intention to offer evidence of an insanity defense as required by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 7 Even though the trial court may have allowed some evidence of insanity to be presented to the jury, there is no finding of good cause for failure to give notice. 8 Having failed to file notice and to obtain a finding of good cause, Aliff was not entitled to a charge on insanity and is in no position to complain of the charge given by the court. 9
Moreover, even had Aliff correctly filed notice or shown good cause, he still would not be entitled to the defense of insanity. As discussed above, to convict a defendant for driving while intoxicated it is not necessary to prove a culpable mental state. 10 Consequently, insanity cannot be a defense to the charge of driving while intoxicated. 11 Point of Error Two is overruled.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
2 The closest evidence to a lack of judgment or volition is:
Q. [Aaron] Okay. In your opinion, Doctor, is it absolutely medically necessary that he take the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmer v. State
...decisions have held that this defense does not apply to DWI cases. 41 Most of those decisions are unpublished, but they all rely on Aliff v. State.42 In that DWI case, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to offer any evidence that he took his prescription medicines f......
-
Baukus v. State
...247, 251 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth2009, pet. ref'd); Nelson v. State, 149 S.W.3d 206, 210 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); Aliff v. State, 955 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.). Baukus theorizes that someone must have given her a date-rape drug during the evening that cause......
-
Mendoza v. State, No. 08-04-00369-CR (Tex. App. 8/10/2006)
...proof of culpable mental state. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 49.11(a); Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214, 215-17 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975);Aliff v. State, 955 S.W.2d 891, 892-93 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.). Point of Error Two is SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his first point of error, Appellant conten......
-
Mendenhall v. State
...746, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (citing City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851, 856-57 (Minn. 1976)); Aliff v. State, 955 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.); Juhasz v. State, 827 S.W.2d 397, 406 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, pet. The first element of thi......
-
Offenses against public health, safety, and morals
...designated for publication) (declining to extend the holding in Torres to the offense of driving while intoxicated); Aliff v. State , 955 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (holding that proof of culpable mental state is not required for a DWI conviction, thus, involuntary int......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...designated for publication)(declining to extend the holding in Torres to the offense of driving while intoxicated); Aliff v. State , 955 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (holding that proof of culpable mental state is not required for a DWI conviction, thus, involuntary into......
-
Table of cases
...v. State 757 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App—Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) 8:540 Alford v. State 866 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) 3:10 Aliff v. State 955 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) 3:1255, 11:685 Allen v. State 971 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) 3:1640 Allen......
-
§ 24.06 Involuntary Intoxication
...M may not claim involuntary intoxication in a strict-liability prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol); Aliff v. State, 955 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (id.).[82] See § 24.05[A], supra.[83] People v. Turner, 680 P.2d 1290, 1292 (Colo. App. 1983); Ellis v. State, 736 ......