X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Adriane Otto was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Otto appealed her conviction, arguing that the submitted concurrent cause instruction permitted a conviction on a theory not alleged in the indictment, namely, that her intoxication was caused by a combination of drugs and alcohol. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the instruction did not conflict with the remainder of the charge and did not permit a conviction on an alternate theory not included in the indictment. HOLDING:“When the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, it did so without the benefit of this Court’s recent opinion in Gray v. State [152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)]. Therefore, we remand for the Court of Appeals to consider the effect of Gray, if any, on its reasoning and analysis in this case.” OPINION:Per curiam; Meyers, J., not participating. CONCURRENCE:Cochran, J. “I join in the majority’s decision to remand this case to the court of appeals in light of Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). I hasten to add, however, that the charge in this case does not suffer from the same defects as those in Gray. In that case (1) the application paragraph of the charge permitted conviction for DWI if the jury found that the defendant was intoxicated ‘by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body, either alone or in combination with Respiratol, Zoloft, Klonopin and/or Depical,’ although the defendant was charged only with intoxication by means of alcohol; and (2) the jury charge included a non-statutory jury instruction based upon an appellate presumption concerning the ‘synergistic effect’ of certain drugs taken in combination with alcohol. Gray, 152 S.W.3d at 127. “In this case, however, the complained-of jury instruction is a plain-vanilla statutory instruction on concurrent causation as set out in �6.04(a) of the Penal Code. The concerns that I expressed in my dissent to Gray, 152 S.W.3d at 135-40, do not exist here.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.