Burnett v. State
541 S.W.3d 77
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Burnett rear-ended another vehicle and was charged with DWI; the information alleged intoxication was caused by "alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination... or any other substance."
- Eyewitnesses and officers detected alcohol odor and observed signs of alcohol intoxication; Burnett performed poorly on three standard field sobriety tests and was arrested.
- Officers found multiple pills on Burnett and in his car; an officer (non‑expert) said the pills "looked like hydrocodone," and Burnett acknowledged having a prescription for "those" pills. Trial court admitted pill evidence as same‑transaction contextual evidence over defense objections.
- The jury charge included the full statutory definition of "intoxicated" (listing alcohol, controlled substances, drugs, dangerous drugs, combinations, and "any other substance") in both the abstract and application paragraphs; Burnett objected that only alcohol was supported by the evidence.
- The jury convicted; on appeal the court of appeals held the full intoxication definition was erroneous because no rational juror could infer drug ingestion from the admitted evidence and reversed on that ground. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Burnett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by submitting the full statutory definition of "intoxicated" (including drugs/"any other substance") in the jury charge when evidence only supported alcohol intoxication | The jury charge must be tailored to the evidence; submitting statutory categories unsupported by the record invites speculation and is error | The statutory definition is broad and the charge may include the whole definition regardless of which intoxicant the evidence primarily suggests; the substance is an evidentiary, not definitional, issue | Court held the trial court must limit the statutory definition in the charge to those categories supported by the evidence; including unsupported categories was error here because evidence did not permit a rational juror to infer non‑alcohol ingestion |
| Whether officers' statements and pill possession supported submission of drug‑based intoxication to the jury | Pill evidence was insufficiently identified/admitted (officers not DREs, no testimony linking pills to observed impairment); thus drug theory unsupported | The pills and related statements provided context; jury could infer drug ingestion | Court agreed with court of appeals that the record lacked adequate evidence to support a drug‑intoxication theory; pills did not supply the necessary link to submit those statutory categories |
Key Cases Cited
- Ouellette v. State, 353 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (upholding full intoxication charge where circumstantial evidence permitted inference defendant ingested a drug that could explain observed symptoms)
- Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial courts must apply law to case facts; discussion of pleading/charge issues for intoxication)
- Smithhart v. State, 503 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (recognition that alcohol intoxication is common knowledge but drug intoxication typically requires qualifying evidence)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (distinguishing per se and impairment theories of intoxication; both may be submitted if supported by evidence)
- Alvarado v. State, 704 S.W.2d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (court must tailor statutory definitions to the offense when only part of a definition applies)