MacIel, Bethany Grace, PD-0753-20

On Jan. 31, 2016, Maciel became intoxicated; her brother drove her car but stopped in the roadway when he became ill.
Maciel moved from the passenger seat into the driver’s seat and attempted to move the vehicle to the shoulder/adjacent parking lot to avoid danger.
The engine was running and Maciel attempted to manipulate the gear shifter; Officer Shaw encountered the car, observed smoke under the hood, and arrested Maciel after she failed field sobriety tests.
At trial Maciel requested a jury instruction on the defense of necessity; the trial court denied the instruction.
The court of appeals affirmed, relying on Maciel’s testimony that she “didn’t think I was operating” the car.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding Maciel’s testimony and other evidence raised necessity under the confession-and-avoidance doctrine and remanded for harm analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Maciel)	Held
Whether Maciel was entitled to a jury instruction on necessity	Maciel denied operating the vehicle, so she did not "confess" to the offense and cannot invoke necessity	Maciel admitted being intoxicated, sitting in the driver’s seat, and trying to move the car to avoid imminent harm — enough to raise necessity	Reversed: the evidence raised necessity; trial court erred in refusing the instruction; remanded for harm analysis
Whether confession-and-avoidance requires an explicit admission of operation for DWI (a strict‑liability offense)	The State argued a defendant must admit the conduct constituting the offense	Maciel: totality of testimony allowed a jury to infer she operated the vehicle and DWI requires no culpable mental state	Held: explicit admission not required; defensive evidence can support the inference of operation; DWI is strict liability for mens rea

Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (confession‑and‑avoidance doctrine: defendant must admit conduct or offer evidence from which culpable state can be inferred)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defensive‑instruction and confession‑and‑avoidance standards)
Denton v. State, 911 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (definition of “operate” under totality‑of‑circumstances sufficiency review)
Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (to operate means to exert personal effort to cause the vehicle to function)
Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant entitled to instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court must give written jury charge setting forth law applicable to case)