Michael Bridges v. State
454 S.W.3d 87
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Bridges was convicted of possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram within a drug-free zone near an early learning academy.
- police arrested Bridges after a trespass encounter at a residence within 1000 yards of the academy, yielding a baggie with meth at the jail.
- The Randall County jury recommended a sentence of 65 years; the trial court sentenced Bridges accordingly.
- Bridges argued the State must prove a culpable mental state as to the location within the drug-free zone.
- Bridges contended the jury charge omitted this location-specific mens rea and was egregiously harmful.
- The court concluded the State need not prove a culpable mental state about location in a drug-free zone and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the State prove mens rea for location in a drug-free zone? | Bridges argues the location element requires mens rea. | State contends no location-based mens rea is required. | No separate mens rea for location is required; affirmed. |
| Was the jury charge error in omitting location-based mens rea? | Bridges contends omission rendered charge erroneous. | State relies on same authority that location mens rea is unnecessary. | Charge not erroneous; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Uribe v. State, 573 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (no separate location mens rea required)
- Williams v. State, 127 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App. Dallas 2004) (offense does not require mens rea beyond that in 481.112(c))
- Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2003) (location mens rea not required; wrongful act focus)
- Shaw v. State, Tex. App. Amarillo 2004 (2004) (drug-free zone enhancement governs punishment, not location mens rea)
- Harris v. State, 125 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App. Austin 2003) (discussion of whether drug-free zone constitutes separate offense)