White v. State
2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 211
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant was convicted of knowingly delivering less than one gram of methamphetamine (Penalty Group 1) and sentenced as a second-degree felon after a prior-felony enhancement; the delivery was alleged to have occurred within 1,000 feet of a youth center (a drug-free zone).
- The core statutory offense (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a)) requires a mental element: the delivery must be "knowingly" made.
- A separate statute (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134(d)) elevates delivery of <1 gram to a third-degree felony if shown at trial that it occurred within 1,000 feet of a youth center; that provision is silent as to any mens rea for the location element.
- Appellant argued the State must prove he knew he was within the drug-free zone (i.e., an additional mens rea for the location) to convict under § 481.134(d).
- The court of appeals rejected that argument; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed, holding § 481.134(d) does not require proof the defendant knew he was within 1,000 feet of a youth center.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 481.134(d) requires proof the defendant knew the delivery occurred within 1,000 feet of a youth center | White (State) argued no additional mens rea is required for the location-enhancement element | Appellant argued § 481.134(d) must include a mens rea for the drug-free zone under Penal Code § 6.02(b) because location elevates the offense | Held: No. The State need not prove awareness of the drug-free zone to obtain the § 481.134(d) conviction |
| Whether the enhancement in § 481.134(d) creates a separate offense subject to § 6.02(b) mens rea rules | White argued § 481.134(d) is an enhancement of the core offense, not a stand-alone offense | Appellant argued § 481.134(d) creates a separate offense lacking mens rea so courts must supply one | Held: § 481.134(d) is an elevation of the § 481.112 offense (lesser-included); mens rea for the core offense suffices |
| Whether principles from cases requiring mens rea for circumstances (e.g., McQueen) control here | State relied on Uribe and later authorities holding no extra mens rea required where base offense already prescribes culpability | Appellant relied on McQueen and § 6.02(b) to argue the court must read mens rea into the location element | Held: McQueen distinguishable—here the location merely elevates an already wrongful act; unlike McQueen the circumstance does not make lawful conduct criminal |
| Whether policy or child-protection concerns counsel imposing mens rea for victim-location elements | State argued Legislature can impose strictness for child-protection and make offender bear risk of enhanced penalty | Appellant argued due process requires mens rea for all elements affecting guilt/grade | Held: Court emphasized legislative intent to protect youth; declining to impose mens rea for location is consistent with precedents protecting children and with statutory structure |
Key Cases Cited
- Uribe v. State, 573 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (holding enhancement that elevates an otherwise complete mens rea offense does not necessarily require an additional culpable mental state)
- Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussing when omission of mens rea as to certain elements indicates legislative intent to dispense with it)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (construing ambiguous mens rea language to apply to circumstantial element where that circumstance makes otherwise lawful conduct unlawful)
- Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (refusing to read mens rea into victim-age element in child-protection sexual-offense statutes)
- Aguirre v. State, 22 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (noting courts may decline to impose mens rea for child-related statutory elements and interpreting Penal Code mens rea principles)