Crenshaw, Bradley Kelton
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1254
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Crenshaw was charged with DWI under a subjective-intoxication theory: not having the normal use of faculties by alcohol into his body.
- Information alleged intoxication by alcohol or by alcohol plus other substances, tracking Texas Penal Code §49.04.
- Trial evidence showed he had BAC 0.07 at 4:01 a.m. and testimony suggested BAC likely ≥0.08 at driving time.
- Charge included an abstract per se definition of intoxication (BAC 0.08 or more) alongside the subjective definition.
- Application paragraph tracked the information’s subjective theory; the jury could convict if subjective intoxication proven.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding inclusion of the per se abstract definition expanded the charge beyond the information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does mirroring the information in the application paragraph expand the charge? | Crenshaw | Crenshaw | No expansion; application paragraph confines jury to information. |
| Is abstract per se intoxication harmless as to the charged theory under Almanza/Barbernell? | State | Crenshaw | Harmless; abstract per se definition within charge did not authorize broader theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbernell v. State, 257 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (definitions are evidentiary; need not be alleged to give notice)
- Otto v. State, 273 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (concurrent-causation/included theory broadened charge)
- Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abstract instruction on a theory does not authorize conviction absent applying facts)
- Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jury presumed to follow charge; applying court's charge is key)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (abstract instruction not misapplied where not applied to facts)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (overlap between definitions; intoxication proofs may overlap)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (variance doctrine; proof cannot vary from allegations)
- Campbell v. State, 910 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (abstract instruction on law can be harmless when applied to facts)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (when applicable, uniform application of charge matters)