William Dewayne White v. State
06-15-00078-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Sep 29, 2015Background
- Appellant William White was convicted of delivering methamphetamine in a drug-free zone near a youth center, enhancing the offense to a third-degree felony under Health and Safety Code §481.134(d).
- The jury found the drug-free-zone finding true; punishment was enhanced by one prior felony to a second-degree felony, resulting in a 15-year sentence.
- The trial court seated an alternate juror who had not been sequestered after a juror was later disqualified, prompting preservation of errors about juror handling.
- Ms. Cooper (regular juror) was disqualified for a prior felony probation; Ms. Shaw was recalled to replace her, over defense objections.
- The defense challenged the verdict and argued the indictment and jury instructions allowed a potentially improper placement of the drug-free-zone finding, and the statute may require culpable mental state for the location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternate juror seating after discharge | White argues the alternate was discharged and not sequestered, making seating error | White contends proper sequestering is required and mistrial should have been declared | Error to seat non-sequestered alternate; remand appropriate |
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug-free-zone mens rea | White asserts lack of culpable mental state for location of delivery | State need not prove location-based mens rea for drug-free-zone finding | Insufficient evidence of knowledge of location; insufficient for jury finding under 481.134(d) |
| Constitutionality/void-for-vagueness of 481.134(d) requiring mens rea | Statute facially unconstitutional for failing to require mens rea | Statute valid with appropriate legislative intent; not a strict-liability crime | Statute unconstitutional on facial grounds if it lacks mens rea; remand for new punishment hearing; potential reform of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinidad v. State, 312 S.W.3d 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (alternate-juror sequestering and jury deliberations guidance)
- Castillo v. State, 319 S.W.3d 966 (Tex. App. Austin 2010) (alternate juror participation guidance)
- Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (discusses mens rea in drug-free-zone context; waiver notes)
- Williams v. State, 127 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (addressed mens rea related to location in drug offenses)
- Harris v. State, 125 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (considerations of Apprendi in punishment enhancements)
- Hastings v. State, 20 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2000) (drug-free-zone issues; timing of consideration)
- Uribe v. State, 573 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (foundation for scienter in location-related offenses)
- Adams v. State, 357 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App. Waco 2011) (statutory interpretation on mens rea considerations)
- Bridges v. State, 454 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014) (state need not prove location-specific mens rea in some drug offenses)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (facial challenges to statutes and waiver/forfeiture considerations)
- United States v. Staples, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (void-for-vagueness/absence of mens rea in federal statute context)