Eric Samuel Tucker v. State, 01-15-00274-CR

Background

Defendant Eric Samuel Tucker was tried in a bench trial for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury with scissors (deadly weapon); judge found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 years.
Tucker testified he was in a blackout and has no memory of the assault; he blamed either voodoo or unexpected effects of synthetic marijuana ("cush" laced with cough syrup).
Complainant Kimberly Lockett testified about a sequence of earlier rough conduct (scratching, punching, attempted sex) and a later, more violent attack in the bathroom where Tucker allegedly cut her with suture scissors, causing severe injuries requiring surgeries; one half of the scissors was found, the other half was not explained.
Officer found Tucker unresponsive on the apartment floor with half a pair of scissors nearby; paramedics revived him and he was not hospitalized.
Appellant’s central contention on appeal: the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tucker’s conduct in the specific scissors assault was voluntary and that he acted intentionally or knowingly; the defense emphasizes involuntary action or lack of mens rea due to an unforeseen intoxicating reaction to synthetic marijuana.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tucker)	Held
Whether the State proved the act was voluntary for the specific scissors assault	Earlier voluntary acts that evening show a continuous, voluntary course of conduct culminating in the scissors assault	The scissors assault was a separate act committed while Tucker was blacked out/involuntary from synthetic marijuana; earlier acts do not prove voluntariness for this offense	At trial judge convicted; appellant argues evidence was legally insufficient to prove voluntariness
Whether the State proved Tucker acted intentionally or knowingly in causing serious bodily injury with scissors	The overall pattern that night supports an intentional course of conduct; complainant’s testimony that parts of the conduct appeared intentional	Tucker lacked the requisite mens rea because he was unconscious/blackout and did not know cush could cause violent behavior; thus he could not have intended or known the result	Trial court found him guilty; appellant contends the State failed to prove intent/knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether evidence of earlier assaults that evening can be used to establish mens rea for the charged offense	The incidents form one continuing assault and are admissible to show intent/voluntariness	Each assaultive contact is a separate offense; earlier incidents cannot supply mens rea or voluntariness for the distinct scissors assault	Appellant argues legal precedent requires proof specific to each charged act; trial court nonetheless convicted
Whether unexpected intoxication from synthetic marijuana can negate voluntariness or mens rea	If defendant used an intoxicant voluntarily and knew risks, intoxication may not excuse conduct	Tucker did not know and had no reason to know the cush would produce violent blackouts; his involuntary intoxication negates voluntariness and requisite mental state	Appellant argues this distinction (unexpected effect vs. mistaken/self-induced) defeats State’s proof; trial court made an implicit finding against that view

Key Cases Cited

Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (distinguishes mistaken/intended ingestion and addresses voluntariness in intoxication context)
Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (gravamen analysis: focus on the specific charged assault)
Mendenhall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (unconsciousness/semi-consciousness defenses: lack of mens rea or voluntary act)
Ramirez-Memije v. State, 44 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (actus reus requires a voluntary act for criminal responsibility)
Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (movement is involuntary if product of unconsciousness, hypnosis, or other non-violent impetus)