Farmer v. State

• Decision Date: 09 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. PD–1620–12.,PD–1620–12.
• Citation: Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
• Parties: Kody William FARMER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

411 S.W.3d 901

Kody William FARMER, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas.

No. PD–1620–12.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 9, 2013.

Sandra Reynolds, Attorney at Law, Richardson, TX, for Appellant.

Danielle A. Kennedy, Assistant District Attorney, Fort Worth, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for The State.

OPINION

HERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, and ALCALA, JJ., joined.

Appellant, Kody William Farmer, was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 90 days' confinement and to pay a $200 fine. His sentence of confinement was suspended for one year of community supervision. The question presented in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to entitle Appellant to a jury-charge instruction on voluntariness. The court of appeals held that Appellant was entitled to a voluntariness instruction. See Farmer v. State, No. 02–09–00278–CR, 2011 WL 1601311, at *6 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Apr. 28, 2011). We will reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Facts

Appellant suffered from chronic back pain due to a work-related injury. As a result, he had taken different medications on and off for more than 10 years, including Ultram,¹ a painkiller, and Soma, a muscle relaxer. Also, four days prior to the incidents in question, Appellant was prescribed Ambien, a sleep aid, for the first time to assist with his insomnia. Ambien and Soma are considered controlled substances by the Federal Government, and all three drugs come with warnings that they may cause drowsiness.

In the morning, Appellant would usually take his Ultram, and sometimes his Soma, before getting in the shower. To help Appellant make sure he took his medication, Appellant's wife would lay out Appellant's medicine for him to take. The morning of the incident in question, Appellant's wife laid out his Ultram and Ambien on their microwave, but she separated the pills so that Appellant would take the Ambien at night because “both his doctor and his pharmacist recommended that he be within minutes of going to bed before taking Ambien.”

During questioning following the accident, Appellant stated that he did not remember taking any of his medication. But he did admit after watching a video of his actions that he did not have the normal use of his mental or physical faculties. Appellant testified that he took Ultram that morning and “I guess Soma. I thought—is what I thought I was taking.” ² He also testified that he did not intentionally or voluntarily take Ambien, and that he does not know how it was introduced into his body because he had never taken Ambien before. However, in response to the question of how Ambien was found in his blood if he had never taken the medication before, he answered, “I don't know. I don't know. I guess it was taken by mistake.” ³ Appellant's wife did not remember seeing Appellant take his medication that morning, but she remembered that “the Ambien I laid out for the night that was on the other side of [the] microwave was gone.” She also testified that she was a hundred percent certain that “he took what I had laid out.”

II. Procedural posture

Appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated. At the close of evidence, the defense requested three jury-charge instructions. ⁴ Specifically, the defense argued that Appellant involuntarily took the Ambien because he thought that the Ambien was his muscle-relaxant medication, Soma. The trial judge discussed the possibility of including an instruction on voluntariness that “would encompass involuntary intoxication,” but ultimately the trialjudge overruled Appellant's objections and declined to charge the jury on any of the requested instructions. Appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at one year of confinement and a $200 fine. His confinement was probated for a term of twelve months.

Appellant appealed his conviction to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, and the court reversed Appellant's conviction and remanded to the trial court. It held that the facts of this case are “most closely akin to an involuntary act because the evidence suggests that although Farmer voluntarily took the pills laid out for him by his wife, he involuntarily took the Ambien pill because of his wife's act.” Farmer, 2011 WL 1601311, at *6. As a result, Appellant was denied a defense that could have resulted in an acquittal, and he suffered some harm because of that error. Id. The court of appeals did not review the State's claim on appeal that the trial court correctly excluded the instructions because they improperly commented on the weight of the evidence. Id. The State filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that the court of appeals should have addressed the State's argument regarding the merits of the proposed instructions. We summarily granted the State's petition and remanded the case to the court of appeals to address the State's claim. See Farmer v. State, No. PD–1041–11, 2011 WL 4072126 (Tex.Crim.App. Sept. 14, 2011) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).

On remand, the court of appeals concluded that the same result was warranted—reversal and remand for a new trial. It held that, even if the proposed instructions impermissibly commented on the weight of the evidence, some evidence at trial raised the issue of voluntariness, which in turn entitled Appellant to some instruction on voluntariness, although not necessarily the proposed instructions. See Farmer v. State, No. 02–09–00278–CR, 2012 WL 4937104, at *7 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Oct. 18, 2012).

We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine if Appellant was entitled to a jury instruction (in any form) on the issue of voluntariness. We will reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. Arguments

The State argues that no evidence was offered at trial to entitle Appellant to a jury instruction on voluntariness. Therefore, the trial judge correctly denied Appellant's request for such an instruction. However, the State does not dispute that Appellant preserved his jury-charge objection under our caselaw and, as a result, would need to show that he suffered some harm if the trial judge erred, rather than egregious harm. See Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (op. on reh'g).

Appellant concedes that he operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, but he argues that because he involuntarily took his sleep-aid medication, he cannot be held criminally liable for his actions under Section 6.01(a) of the Texas Penal Code.⁵ Specifically, Appellant contends that his wife's independent act of placing the Ambien on the microwave instead of his other medication raised at least a scintilla of evidence at trial that Appellant's actions were not voluntary, which entitled him to an instruction on the issue. Appellant further contends that the denial of his request for an instruction on voluntariness caused him some harm and, thus, his conviction should be reversed. See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.

IV. The Law

Under Texas law, a person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code § 49.04(a). A person is intoxicated if he or she has a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher or does not have the normal use of his mental or physical faculties. Id. § 49.01(2). In cases not involving alcohol, such as this case, the latter standard must be proven. The offense of driving while intoxicated is a strict liability crime meaning that it does not require a specific mental state (e.g., intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly intending to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated), only a person on a public roadway voluntarily operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. See Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164, 164–65 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214, 217–18 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), overruled on other grounds by, Ex parte McCain, 67 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

Because Appellant's jury-instruction arguments touched on the defenses of “accident” and “involuntary act,” we think it is also helpful to address those issues. We have previously discussed the relationship between the two theories. See Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). In Rogers, we held that the claim of “accident” was not interchangeable with the claim of “involuntary act” because the defense of “accident” was applicable only to offenses committed under the former Penal Code. Id. at 638. We explained that, when the Texas Penal Code of 1974 was adopted, the Legislature abandoned the “accident” approach as a catch-all, in favor of the more precise approach taken by the American Law Institute in the Model Penal Code. Id. at 637–38. Part of that new approach included a rejection of the defense of “accident,” which ambiguously addressed the physical actions and the mental state of a criminal defendant. Id. at 638–39. Instead, the drafters adopted two separate defenses to replace the defensive theory of “accident.” Id. at 639. The first, and relevant one here, is “involuntary act,” which focuses solely on physical acts of the accused and is now found in Section 6.01(a) of the Texas Penal Code. The second defense, which focuses on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident, requires a culpable mental state, the absence of which can be used to defend oneself from criminal liability. Thus, to avoid ambiguity in the law, the old defense of “accident” was divided into its constituent parts—the defense of “involuntary act” and the defense that a defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit the crime. Id. at 638;see also 43 George E. Dix & John M. Schmolesky, Texas Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 43:34 (3d ed.2011).

Section 6.01(a) of the Texas Penal Code places a restriction on offenses...