04 04 2003 v. 991 430 434 35 1999 (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Section 8.04 of the penal code provides that although voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the commission of a crime, “[e]vidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication may be introduced by the actor in mitigation of the penalty attached to the offense for which he is being tried.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.04(a), (b) (Vernon 2003).3 Appellant contends that the trial court's instruction fails because it does not direct the jury to actually consider any evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication. But “the law does not require a juror to consider any particular piece of evidence as mitigating; all the law requires is that a defendant be allowed to present relevant mitigating evidence and that the jury be provided a vehicle to give mitigating effect to that evidence if the jury finds it to be mitigating.” Raby v. State, 970 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). Accordingly, the trial court's instruction was proper.3 See Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434-35 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). We overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgments.

NOS. 02-10-00277-CR

Decided: February 11, 2011

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

Tex.R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 10, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.. FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

FN3. Moreover, appellant's requested charge, which tracks the pattern jury charge, is more appropriate to a case in which the defendant has pled not guilty, and the jury must be instructed that the temporary-insanity-caused-by-intoxication is not to be considered at guilt-innocence, but rather, “should be considered” instead as relevant to punishment. Here, appellant pled guilty to the jury, so the trial court's departure from the pattern jury charge, while nevertheless a proper statement of the law, was also appropriately tailored to the situation at hand.. FN3. Moreover, appellant's requested charge, which tracks the pattern jury charge, is more appropriate to a case in which the defendant has pled not guilty, and the jury must be instructed that the temporary-insanity-caused-by-intoxication is not to be considered at guilt-innocence, but rather, “should be considered” instead as relevant to punishment. Here, appellant pled guilty to the jury, so the trial court's departure from the pattern jury charge, while nevertheless a proper statement of the law, was also appropriately tailored to the situation at hand.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law