Ramirez-Memije v. State, 444 S.W.3d 624

Ramirez-Memije was charged with fraudulent possession of identifying information under Texas Penal Code §32.51(b).
A jury convicted him and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
He argued trial court erred by not instructing on voluntary conduct under §6.01 and on presumptions under §2.05, and by admitting testimony about his Mexican origin and illegal status.
The court of appeals reversed and remanded for other issues.
The State petitioned for discretionary review to resolve whether a defendant is entitled to a voluntary possession instruction when he claims he did not know the forbidden nature of the thing possessed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held against the defense, concluding no voluntary-conduct instruction was required and remanded for remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to voluntary possession instruction under §6.01(b)?	Ramirez-Memije argued he did not know the skimmer contained identifying information.	Ramirez-Memije contends evidence raised voluntary-possession issue requiring §6.01 instruction.	No automatic entitlement to §6.01 instruction; voluntary act not established here.
Relation between knowledge of contraband and voluntariness in possession?	Ramirez-Memije asserts knowledge of possession is separate from knowledge of contraband.	State argues knowledge of contraband is required culpable mental state, not voluntariness.	Knowledge of the object’s nature is a mens rea element, not an absence of voluntariness issue; voluntariness not satisfied for §6.01.

Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussed linking contraband to accused; not about §6.01(b) voluntariness)
Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (held no voluntary-act instruction when defendant voluntarily took an action; informs analysis of voluntary act)