Farmer, Kody William
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1490
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Kody William Farmer, prescribed tramadol (Ultram) and carisoprodol (Soma) for chronic pain, had been prescribed zolpidem (Ambien) for the first time four days before the incidents.
- Farmer’s wife laid out his morning and night pills on the microwave; she separated them so Ambien would be taken at night.
- After two vehicle accidents Farmer submitted to a blood test that showed therapeutic levels of zolpidem; he admitted he voluntarily took the pills his wife laid out but testified he did not intentionally take Ambien and didn’t remember taking it.
- At trial Farmer requested jury instructions on involuntary intoxication/voluntariness/accident; the trial court refused and convicted him of DWI (suspended sentence).
- The court of appeals reversed, holding some evidence supported involuntary intoxication; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and considered whether any evidence entitled Farmer to a voluntariness instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Farmer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence raised voluntariness/involuntary-intoxication defense requiring a jury instruction | Wife’s placement of pills caused Farmer to ingest Ambien unknowingly; thus his intoxication was involuntary | No evidence showed Farmer’s ingestion was non‑volitional—he picked up and swallowed the pills himself | Denied: taking the wrong prescribed pill was a voluntary act; no instruction required |
| Whether mistake-of-fact negates DWI liability | Farmer: he reasonably believed he took Soma, not Ambien | State: DWI is strict liability; mistake of fact does not negate required mens rea because none is required | Denied: mistake of fact does not negate an element of strict-liability DWI |
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing the proposed charge | Farmer: refusal denied a defensive theory raised by evidence | State: no defensible issue was raised—charge would improperly comment on weight of evidence | Trial court did not err: no factual support for involuntariness instruction |
| Standard of harm for preserved jury-charge error | Farmer: preserved objection so must show some harm | State: acknowledges preservation; appellate review applies Almanza some‑harm standard | Court applied preserved‑error standard and found no charge error, so harmlessness analysis unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (distinguishes "accident" from "involuntary act" and explains voluntariness focuses on physical, controllable movements)
- Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (DWI is strict‑liability regarding mental state for non‑alcohol substances)
- Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (same principle on strict liability offenses)
- Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (involuntary intoxication jury charge required where defendant unknowingly ingested intoxicant)
- Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Sections 6.01 and 6.02 operate together; actus reus requirement explained)
- Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant is entitled to defensive instruction if evidence raises the issue, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (preserved jury‑charge error requires a showing of "some harm")