Clinton, Katherine
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1673
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Clinton convicted under Tex. Penal Code §32.31(b)(1) for using a debit/credit card to obtain a benefit.
- Appellant challenges whether the statute requires proof of acquisitive conduct as to the element of "use."
- The Court majority held evidence was legally sufficient to show use of the card and did not require acquisitive conduct for the "use" element.
- Price, J., writes separately to address statutory interpretation and argues the statute is ambiguous and may be informed by extratextual factors.
- Price analyzes the historical evolution of credit-card offenses (Articles 1555b, 1555c; 1963 and 1969 amendments) and the Code Construction Act to argue that "use" does not by itself mandate acquisitive conduct, though this does not categorically resolve independent meanings of "use" vs. "present."
- Ultimately, Price concurs in the judgment but offers a distinct path to the same result by limiting the implications of the plain-language reading and emphasizing legislative intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §32.31(b)(1) requires acquisitive conduct to prove the "use" element | State argues plain text dispels need for acquisitive conduct | Clinton argues the text is ambiguous and may require extratextual analysis | No strict acquisitive-conduct requirement for "use"; evidence of use suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (illustrates treating related terms with overlapping concepts to effect legislative intent)
- Nolan v. State, 629 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (discusses use/presents ambiguity in statutory language)
- Shipp v. State, 331 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (cites canon of construction and interpretation principles)
- State v. Rodriguez, 339 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (concurrent observation on purposive statutory interpretation)