Am I the only one who did not know how messed up the law is in the area of involuntary intoxication as an affirmative defense? The case law has not kept up with legislative changes in the definition of insanity and as a result there are a bunch of cases out there stating the proper definition of insanity in a case of involuntary intox is the old two prong test that existed prior to the 1983 amendments. I am trying to convince a judge to ignore all those cases on Monday. Anyone got any help. I have only found one case that helps (Ramos at 991 S.W. 2d430) By the way, anyone know of an expert on the drug Paxil. The defense claims Paxil made him do it.

If nothing else, object to the involuntary intoxication charge so that y'all can raise a cross-point on appeal and maybe get the issue to Austin. I think defenses not contained in the Penal Code won't fare well in the CCA. Cf.alibi instructions rejected in Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Your case is similar to Giesberg because the Paxil evidence is merely an attempt to negate the culpable mental state. The code provision says that voluntary intoxication is not a defense, not that involuntary intoxication is. Torres is just wrong.

I had a case a few years back where they got the charge but were whining about sufficiency and the exclusion of supporting evidence on appeal. I argued that it was not applicable to my case because the charged offense was DWI, and therefore no culpable mental state to be negated by involuntary intoxication. The court implicitly rejected my argument in an unpublished opinion, stating that involuntary intoxication was subsumed in the voluntary conduct provision of Section 6.01. We won, though. I don't think it helps you but the opinion is at http://www.courtstuff.com/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_98.ask+B+960087F_R2#960087F_R2

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 03-22-02 at .]

Hey, Chuck, aren't you the guy who just lobbied for Harris County during the last Legislative session? And you didn't get them to clean that up while you had the chance? What gives?

Thanks, John R. I have that case and have filed an objection as you suggested for the cross appeal. HA HA John B. why didn't you guys clean this up when you were running the show for Sen Whitmire?????

I just now noticed your discussion of involuntary intoxication, or I would have responded sooner. The CCA ordered us to file a brief on that and related issues, so I had to research it and try to put our position into some sort of comprehensible form. If you're interested, I'd be glad to fax you our brief.

So I think the Court had an opportunity to kill this thing but didn't:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/108900.htm

I say we keep trying. Intoxication is not a "defect," it is a condition. Tumors and blunt trauma effects are "defects." At least they didn't say intoxication was a disease.

Mathew

Could I please get a copy of your brief. My fax number is 817 884 2499. Thanks

Richard Alpert
Tarrant County D.A.'s Office

Chuck, if you are still reading this thread, you need a life. But, just in case, the Waco Court of Appeals recently decided a case on the same statute:

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-380-CR

LARRY WAYNE HAYNES,
Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee


Decided August 21, 2002.

Perhaps your trusty appellate division can get you a copy. I would have put in a link, but it seems the Waco Court of Appeals website doesn't include opinions.

Chuck, if we're not careful, that "old two-pronged test" for insanity won't be so "old" anymore come next session ...

Matthew, I also would like a copy of the brief you mention in this topic. Please fax me a copy at your most earliest convenience. Thanks.

Bill Neal, District Attorney
50th Judicial District
P.O. Box 1340
Seymour, Texas 76380

940-889-5140 Office
940-889-3186 Fax