Jenkins, James Alan
PD-0832-15
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2015Background
- James Alan Jenkins and nine others registered to vote in a Woodlands Road Utility District (RUD) election listing The Residence Inn (a hotel) as their residence; Jenkins also maintained a long‑time homestead outside the RUD.
- Jenkins voted in the May 8, 2010 RUD election; prosecutors alleged a coordinated scheme to change registrations to the hotel to "take over" the RUD board.
- Trial evidence: hotel guest records showing many had not previously stayed there, deed/homestead records tying voters to properties outside the RUD, and testimony that organizers recruited voters and coordinated hotel stays and post‑election appearances.
- Jenkins requested a Penal Code § 8.03 (mistake of law) jury instruction at charge conference; the trial judge denied it, concluding Jenkins denied the conduct charged (confession and avoidance issue) and instead contested the element that he "knew" he was ineligible.
- Jenkins was convicted and sentenced to three years; the court of appeals (majority) held the trial court erred by refusing the § 8.03 instruction and that the error harmed Jenkins; the State sought review arguing § 8.03 is a confession‑and‑avoidance affirmative defense and inapplicable here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jenkins) | Held (court of appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code § 8.03 (mistake of law) is an affirmative defense requiring confession and avoidance | § 8.03 is a statutory affirmative defense (like insanity/duress), so it requires the defendant to admit the conduct charged and show reasonable reliance on authoritative legal statements; thus trial court properly denied instruction where Jenkins contested the conduct/knowledge element | § 8.03 can function like mistake‑of‑fact to negate the mental element; Jenkins argued he reasonably believed his voting was lawful based on legal sources and thus was entitled to the instruction | Court of appeals (majority): held the trial court erred in refusing the § 8.03 instruction (treating it akin to a defense negating culpable mental state) and found harm to Jenkins |
| Whether Jenkins’ claimed reliance on legal authorities was reasonable and supported § 8.03 | State: Jenkins failed to point to an authoritative statement that expressly authorized his conduct; his reliance was subjective, factually unsupported, and unreasonable as a matter of law | Jenkins: cited Secretary of State and Attorney General opinions and cases (e.g., Mills) and argued those sources supported his belief he could establish residency for voting | Court of appeals: accepted that a mistake‑of‑law instruction was supportable on the record (majority view) |
| Whether a mistake‑of‑law instruction would unconstitutionally shift burden on an element of the crime | State: § 8.03 is confession/avoidance and does not negate an element; giving it where the defense actually contests the element (knowledge of ineligibility) improperly shifts burdens and is unnecessary because the reasonable‑doubt instruction covers the defense | Jenkins: contended the requested instruction properly framed the doctrine and should be submitted; burden provisions in § 8.03 are constitutional | Court of appeals: majority did not find the burden issue determinative and held the omission harmful |
| Whether omission of § 8.03 instruction caused actual harm | State: no actual harm — the charge sufficiently required the jury to resolve whether Jenkins "knew" he was ineligible (so it encompassed the defensive theory); evidence strongly against good‑faith reliance; permitting the instruction in effect would have advantaged Jenkins by shifting burdens | Jenkins: omission deprived jury of the specific statutory framework for mistake of law and likely affected verdict | Court of appeals: found the omission harmful (majority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussion of defenses and characterization of some defenses as affirmative)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (describing statutory affirmative defenses as confession and avoidance)
- Cornet v. State, 359 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (affirmative defense that excuses conduct does not negate an element and is subject to confession/avoidance)
- Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1987) (constitutional analysis of burden shifting when an affirmative defense would negate an element)
- Lowry v. State, 692 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (due‑process limits on shifting burden to defendant)
- Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1964) (Texas residence cases emphasizing difficulty defining "residence" and principles used in residency disputes)