Celis, Mauricio Rodriguez
416 S.W.3d 419
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Mauricio Celis was charged with 14 counts of falsely holding himself out as a lawyer in Texas under Tex. Penal Code § 38.122, despite lacking a license or good standing.
- Celis held himself out as a lawyer in Texas for economic gain over several years, including on business cards and a web page, with claims of Mexican licensure and bar membership that were not verified.
- The trial court instructed the jury to consider only the statute’s express intent to obtain an economic benefit, omitting culpable-mental-state elements related to the other license-and-good-standing elements.
- The jury found Celis guilty on multiple counts and imposed substantial 10-year sentences; the court of appeals upheld the trial court’s jury-charge rulings.
- Celis appealed, challenging the denial of a mistake-of-fact instruction and the inclusion of a foreign-legal-consultant definition in the jury charge.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to address three jury-charge issues: mental-state scope, mistake-of-fact entitlement, and the foreign-legal-consultant definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Culpable mental state beyond statute | Celis contends statute silent on mental state; requires additional intent. | State argues statute’s language limits mental state to economic-benefit element only. | Statute prescribes only economic-benefit intent; no extra mental-state required. |
| Mistake-of-fact instruction entitlement | Celis sought mistake-of-fact instruction to negate culpability beyond economic-benefit element. | State asserts mistake of fact cannot negate required culpable mental state here. | Celis not entitled; mistake did not negate the required culpability. |
| Definition of foreign legal consultant in good standing | Instruction defining foreign legal consultant was improper as weight-of-evidence comment. | Definition drawn from Rules Governing Admission to the Bar; proper law applying to good standing. | Instruction proper; definition based on established legal meaning and applicable rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguirre v. State, 22 S.W.3d 463 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (factors for implied dispense of mental-state element when statute prescribes partial culpability)
- Thompson v. State, 236 S.W.3d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (mistake-of-fact defense; transfer of intent; three observations about the defense)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (ambiguities in applying mistake-of-fact to 'without consent' element; later characterized as flawed by majority)
- Green v. State, 221 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.Crim.App.1949) (mistake negating culpable mental state need not be reasonable; Green as baseline for mistake defense)
- Satterwhite v. State, 979 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (disapproved notion that extra mental states beyond express statute are required)
- Lomax v. State, 233 S.W.3d 302 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (felony-murder; discussion on mental-state dispensing in certain subsections)
- Hill v. State, 765 S.W.2d 794 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (mistake of fact in controlled-substance context; necessity of reasonableness)
- Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (mistake-of-fact defense limitations; context in capital murder)