Watson, Crystal Michelle
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 858
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Watson and Smith were charged with Attack by a Dog under Texas Health & Safety Code § 822.005(a)(1) and were tried together.
- The offense requires failure to secure a dog with criminal negligence and a resulting unprovoked dog attack causing death at a location off the owner’s property.
- Tanner Monk, a 7-year-old, was fatally attacked by dogs near the appellants’ property; one shoe from Tanner was found in the yard and multiple dogs were seized.
- Evidence included opinions of a medical examiner and a forensic dentist regarding dog bites and the location of the fatal attack.
- The jury charge instructed guilt based on failure to secure the dog and an off-property attack causing death; appellants challenged the statute as vague and the jury unanimity.
- The court of appeals affirmed, upholding the statute as not unconstitutionally vague and the verdicts as unanimous for the off-property fatal attack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 822.005(a)(1) void for vagueness? | Watson contends terms 'attack' and 'unprovoked' are undefined. | Watson argues the statute lacks definite prohibitions and invites arbitrary enforcement. | Statute not void for vagueness; defined with objective standards and mens rea. |
| Must the statute specify the location and conduct to preserve uniformity? | Appellants claim lack of a single defined act violates unanimity. | State asserts conduct is failure to secure, with a unified off-property fatal attack satisfying elements. | Unanimity satisfied; jury could convict on the single act of failing to secure the dogs resulting in off-property attack. |
| Is the conviction unconstitutional as applied to this case? | Appellants argue the attack began on property, implicating different acts not clearly defined by statute. | State argues the fatal attack occurred off-property and the verdict rests on failure to secure, not on an undefined attack. | Not unconstitutional as applied; evidence supports off-property fatal attack linked to failure to secure. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (void-for-vagueness standard for penal statutes; ordinary-intelligence understanding)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (definitional vagueness; conduct proscribed must be clearly defined)
- Floyd v. State, 575 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (plain meaning of undefined terms; ordinary intelligence standard)
- Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (vagueness challenge; must be definite in all applications)