Chiarini v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 970
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Appellant Edward Chiarini, condominium unit owner, carried a handgun in the complex's common area.
- He was convicted of unlawfully carrying a weapon under Texas Penal Code § 46.02.
- On appeal, Chiarini challenged sufficiency, arguing the common area qualified as his own premises.
- Condominium declaration shows common elements are owned in common by all unit owners, with a 1/180 undivided interest for Chiarini.
- The court of appeals acquitted, holding the common area was not within § 46.02’s prohibition.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmatively held the common area was Chiarini's own premises, thus § 46.02 not violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does common area count as own premises for UCW? | State: no ownership/control over common area. | Chiarini: co-owner with undivided interest makes area own premises. | Yes; common area is own premises for co-owner. |
| Should extratextual factors/absurd results alter interpretation? | Reading §46.02 with §46.035 yields absurd results. | Court should not reinterpret text; extratextuals not persuasive. | No absurd results; extratextual factors rejected; uphold literal reading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutory interpretation and textual analysis guidance)
- Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (extratextual factors admissible when ambiguous)
- Ex parte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (extratextual considerations in statutory construction)
- Dutcher v. Owens, 647 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. 1983) (tenancy in common/ownership concepts in property)
- Moosani v. State, 866 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 1993) (ownership of common elements in condominium context)