Section 22.01(b) state d: “An off ense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, 1 except that the offense is a fe lony of the third degreeif the off ense is committed ag ainst . . . a member of

the def endant’ s family

or household, if it is shown on the trial of the of fensethat the defendant has be en pre viously convicted of

an off ense ag ainst a member

of the de fenda

nt’s family or household under

this section.” T EX . P EN A L C ODE A NN . § 2 2 . 0 1 (b ) ( V e r

n o n2 0 0 3 ) . In 2005, the leg islature altered the languag e of this sec tion. The cha ng es to Section 22.01(b)( 2) apply to offense s committed on or after September 1, 2005. Appellant’s of

fenseoccur

red on September 24, 2004. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0971- 08
ER I C SA K I L , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE EI GH TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

EL P ASO CO UNTY M E YE RS , J ., d eli v er ed th e o p inion for a u n a n im o u s C o u rt. O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , E r i c Saki l , w as char ged w i t h as s aul t , enhanc ed underPenal C ode S ec ti o n 2 2 . 0 1 (b)(2 ). T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 2 2 .0 1 (b )( 2 ) ( V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). A t tr ia l, a 1Sakil–Page2

ps y chi atr i s tt es t i fi ed t o A ppel l ant ’ s pr es entus e of pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on and form er abus e of drugs and al cohol . T he ps y chi atr i s tdes cr i bed the beha vi or al eff ect s of drugs A ppel l anthad us ed. H ow ever , A ppel l ant ’ s w i fe, C l audi a, t ol d t he 911 oper at oron t he dayof t he i nci dentt hatA ppel l antw as noti nt oxi cat ed. N evert hel es s , t he tr i al j udge bel i eved thatt he j ur ym i ghtl i nk t he evi dence of A ppel l ant ’ s odd behavi oron t he dat e of t he as s aul tand hi s hi s t or yof s ubs t ance abus e w i t h t he ps y chi atr i s t ’ s des cr i pt i on of drugi nduced s y m pt om s . She t her efor e i ncl uded an i ns t ruct i on i n t he j ur ychar ge s t at i ng t hat
v o lun taryintox icati o n is no t a de fe n se. T h e juryfo u n d A p p ell an t gu il ty , an d the c o u rt as s es s ed puni s hm entats even y ear s ’ confi nement . A ppel l ant ’ s fi r s ti s s ue i n t he courtof appea l s as s er t ed thatt he tr i al cour terr ed byi ncl udi ng t he vol unt ary - i nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i on i n t he j ur ychar ge. T he courtof appe al s r es ol ved thati s s ue i n favorof A p p e lla n t a n d re v e rs e d th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. Sa k il v. S ta te , No . 0 8 - 0 5 - 0 0 3 4 2 - CR, 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 4 2 3 0 (T e x . A p p .– E l P a so Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , p e t. gr a n ted ). W e w ill
re v e rs e th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls . I. F a cts O n Sept ember 24, 2004, C l audi a Saki l and A ppel l antengage d i n a hea t ed
ar gum entovert he pat erni t yof one of herchi l dr en. A ppel l antal l eged thatone of the
c h ild re n w a s n o t h is b io lo g ica l ch ild . A t o n e p o in t d u rin g th e f ig h t, C lau d ia w a s a b le to l ock A ppel l antoutof t he apa r t m ent . W hen A ppel l antfor ced the dooropen, br eaki ng t heSakil–Page3

In 2003, Appellant wa s convicted of assault for injuringClaudia duringa similar 2 argument. At that time, Claudia was eight and a half months pregnant, and Appe llant acc used her of car rying a nother man’ s child. The convic tion, cited in the indictment for the Septembe r 24, 2004 assault, enha

nced theoffe nse at issue in this caseto a third-degreefelony under Sec tion 22.01(b)( 2). T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.01(b)( 2) (Vernon 2003). The physician name d four dr ug s in Appellant’s “le ngthy” history of drugabuse, not 3 including A

ppellant’s cur

rent pre scription medications. l ock, par tof t he doorhi tC l audi a i n t he fa ce. C l audi a ca l l ed 911 and r epor t ed that 2 A ppel l anthad i nj ur ed herw i t h t he doort o t hei rapart m ent . T hough s he hi nt ed at A ppel l ant ’ s pr evi ous drug us e, C l audi a t ol d t he 911 oper at ort hatA ppel l antw as not in to x ic a te d . A tt r i al , C l audi a t es t i fi ed thatA ppel l antbehave d oddl ydur i ng t he fi ght . H e w as re s tle s s , w a s n o t b e in g “ h im s e lf ,” a n d h e b e lie v e d th a t h e w a s b e in g f o llo w e d . T h e n , a ps y chi atr i s tt es t i fi ed t o A ppel l ant ’ s hi s t or yof pol y s ubs t ance abus e and e m phas i zed “ a re c o rd e d h isto ry. . . tha t [ A p p e llan t] . . . ab u se d d ru g s a n d in to x ica n ts.” W h e n a sk e d to 3 des cr i be the ef

fec t s of amphet ami nes , a s ubs t ance t hatA ppel l antadmi t t ed t o us i ng att he
a g e o f e ig h te e n , th e p s y c h ia tr is t lis te d h yp e rs tim u la tio n , p a ra n o ia , a n d h yp e rv ig ila n c e . D es pi t e C l audi a’ s s t at ement t o t he 911 oper at ort hatA ppel l antw as noti nt oxi cat ed on t he dat e of the off

ens e, t he j udge bel i eved thatt he j ur ym i ghtfi nd ot herw i s e by
co n n ec ti n g A p p ell an t’ s h ist o ryo f d rug ab u se, his str an g e b eh av ior, an d the p h y sici an ’s l i s tof drug- i nduced s y m pt om s . So, overdefe ns e couns el ’ s obj ect i on, t he tr i al j udge i ncl uded a vol unt ary - i nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i on i n t he j ur ychar ge, w hi ch s t at ed:Sakil–Page4

The sec ond issue was whe ther the trial court er red in re fusingto allow consideration of 4 past mental problems in asse ssing the requisite mens rea . Sa k il , 2008 Tex. App. L EXI S 4230, at *1. The c ourt overr

uled that issue, as the trial court had “not preve nted [Appellant] from prese nting e videnceof his mental condition.” Id. at *11. Y o u a re in stru c ted th a t v o lu n tar y in to x ica tio n d o e s n o t co n stitu te a d e f e n se to th e c o m m iss io n o f

th e c ri m e . B yth e ter m “ in to x ica tio n ” a s u se d h e re in is m eantdi s turbance of m ent al orphy s i cal capa ci t yr es ul t i ng fr om t he in tr o d u c tio n o f

a n ys u b s ta n c e in to th e b o d y . T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 8 .0 4 (a )& (d ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). T h e ju ryf o u n d A p p e llan t g u ilty o f a s s a u lt, e n h a n c e d w ith h is p re v io u s c o n v ic tio n f o r a s s a u ltin g a m e m b e r o f h is f a m ily. T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 22. 01( b) ( 2) ( V ernon 2003) . T he tr i al cour tas s es s ed p u n ish m e n t at s e v e n y e a rs’ c o n f in e m e n t. O n a p p e a l, A p p e lla n t a rg u e d tw o p o in ts . Sa k il , 2008 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4230, at
* 1 . T h e f

i r s ti s s u e w a s w h e t h e rt h e t r i a l c o u r te r r e d i n i n c l u d i n g t h e v o l u n t a r yin to x ic a tio n in s tr u c tio n in th e ju ry c h a rg e . I d. T he courtof appe al s s us t ai ned thi s i s s ue, deci di ng t hat“ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence foranyfac tfi ndert o r eac h t he conc l us i on t hatA ppel l ant ’ s ps y chot i c beha vi orand r es ul t i ng as s aul ton hi s w i fe w as [s i c] caus ed by hi s vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on. ” Id
. a t * 7 . A s a re su lt o f th is c o n c lu sio n , the c o u rt o f a p p e a ls
re v e rse d th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d e d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith i t s opi ni on. I

d. a t * 1 4 . 4 I n r es pons e t o t he St at e’ s pet i t i on, w e gr ant ed fourgr ounds forr evi ew , al l r el at i ng t o t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on on vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on: ( 1) D oes a tr i al cour terrbys ubm i t t i ng a j ur ychar ge thatvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on i s nota def ens e t o pr os ecut i on w hen the evi denceSakil–Page5

“ We h aveint e rp re te d th is t o me an th at any ha rm , re g ardle ss o f d e gre e , is su ff ic ie nt t o 5 requirereversal.” Drue ry v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 491, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). at t ri al do es n o t aff

irm ati v elysh o w that the d ef en d an t w as in tox icated ; ( 2 ) D id the co u rt of appe al s errbyhol di ng t hatt her e w as no evi dence fr om anys our ce thatm i ghtl ead a j ur yt o concl ude thatt he def endant ’ s i nt oxi cat i on s om ehow excus ed hi s act i ons ; ( 3) D oes a trial c o u rt’s s u b m iss io n o f a ju ryc h a rg e th a t v o lu n tar yin to x ica tio n is n o t a d e f e n se to pr os ecut i on “cr eat e a pr es um pt i on t hatan i nt oxi cat ed per s on has t he r equi s i t e ment al
s t at e, t hus r el i evi ng t he s t at e of pr ovi ng t he el ement s of t he off ens e”; and ( 4) D i d t he
su b m iss io n o f

a n in a p p lica b le, s u p e rf lu o u s ju ryin stru c tio n c a u se so m e h a rm to A p p e llan t. I I . St andard of r evi ew T o r evi ew cl ai m s of j ur ychar ge err or , an appe l l at e courtm us tfi r s tas k
w h e th e r t h e re w a s e rr o r i n th e c h a rg e . B a rr io s v . S ta te , N o. PD - 0891- 08, 2009 T ex. C rim . A p p . L E X IS 5 2 3 , at * 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . A p ril 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). If th e re w a s e rro r a n d if th e a p p e llan t o b

jec ted to th e e rro r a t trial, “r e v e rsa l is re q u ire d if th e e rro r is ‘c a lcu late d to i nj ur e the r i ght s of [the] defe ndant , ’ ” meani ng t hat“ther e mustbe s o me har m t o t he
a c c u s e d f

ro m th e e rr o r.” A lm a n za v . S ta te , 686 S. W . 2d 157, 171 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 5 1985) . I f, how ever , t he appe l l antdi d notobj ectt o t he err oratt r i al , t he err orm us tbe “funda m ent al , ” and r ever s al i s r equi r ed “onl yi f t he err ori s s o egr egi ous and cr eat ed s uch h a rm ” th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t d id n o t h a v e a f

a ira n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l. Id
. II I. A n a ly sis T h e f ir s t is s u e is w h e th e r t h e re w a s e rr o r i n th e ju ry c h a rg e . B ar r i os , 2009 T ex.Sakil–Page6

Section 8.04 contains four subsections, (a) through (d). Theinstruction herequotes 6 Subsections (a) a

nd (d). Subsec tion (a) is direc ted to the guilt phase of trial. Tay lor v . S tate , 885 S.W .2d 154, 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Subsections (b) and ( c) a ddress substanc e-induc ed temporar y insanity as a mitig atingfac tor duringthe punishment phase a nd as the subjec t of a jury charg e. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 8.04(b)& (c) (Ve rnon 2003). Subsec tions (b) and (c ) are not at issue in this case. That is, as opposed to Section 8.04(c ), which require s a jury charg e whe n “tempora

ry 7 insanity is relied upon as a

defense and theevidenc e tends to show that such insanity was c aused by intox ication.” T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 8.04(c) (Ve rnon 2003). B ut, as we state d in Taylor , S u b s e c t i o n( c ) s e t s f

o rth“ o n l y c e rta in circ umstances in which a trial court must g ive an ins tr uc tio n, ” and

do e s n ot “

precludethe g iving of

an instruction if circumstances, diff erent than C ri m . A p p . L E X IS 5 2 3 , a t * 4 . If th e re w a s n o e rr o r, w e n e e d n o t p u rs u e a h a rm a n a lysis . T h e in stru c tio n a t issu e , d e riv e d f ro m P e n a l C o d e S e c tio n 8 .0 4 , sta tes : Y o u a re in stru c ted th a t v o lu n tar y in to x ica tio n d o e s n o t c o n stitu te a d e f e n se to th e c o m m iss io n o f

th e c rim e . B yth e ter m “ in to x ica tio n ” a s u se d h e re in is m eantdi s turbance of m ent al orphy s i cal capaci t yr es ul t i ng fr om t he i n t r o d u c t i o n o f

a n y s u b s t a n c e i n t o t h e b o d y. 6 T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 8 . 0 4 (a)& (d) (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). A r t i cl e 36. 14 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e r equi r es a j udge t o del i vert o t he j ur y“a w r i t t en cha r ge di s t i nct l ys et t i ng for t h t he l aw appl i cabl e t o t he ca s e. ” C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 36. 14 ( V ernon 2007) . B utw hatcr i t er i a qual i fya s t at ement of l aw as bei ng “appl i cabl e t o t he ca s e”? Som e i nfor m at i on, s uch as t he el ement s of t he cha r ged offe ns e, m us tappea ri n t he j ur ychar ge and i s w i t houtques t i on “the l aw appl i cabl e t o t he
c a s e .” 4 3 G e o rg e E . D ix & R o b e rt O . D a w s o n , C r i m i nalP r act i ce and Proc edur e § 36. 11 ( 2d ed. 2001) . B uta Sect i on 8. 04( a) i ns t ruct i on need notappea ri n everyj ur ychar ge, and t her efor e, t her e i s no s ua s pont e dut yt o i ns t ructt he j ur yon t hati s s ue, butt he j udge may do s o, i f t he ques t i on of vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on appl i es t o t he ca s e. See D e lg a d o v . S ta te , 7Sakil–Page7

those outlined in [ S] ubsection (c ), otherw ise raisean issue under either [S] ubsection (a) or (b).” Taylor , 885 S.W .2d at 156. Fur thermore , a def

endant ne ed not re ly

upon intox ication as a

defense in order

for the 8 charg e to fe aturea Section 8.04(a) instruction. Taylor , 885 S.W .2d at 158. 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). W e have s t at ed thata Sect i on 8. 04( a) i ns t ruct i on i s appr opr i at e i f t her e i s evi dence fr om anys our ce thatm i ghtl ead a j ur yt o concl ude thatt he def endant ’ s i nt oxi cat i on som eho w excu sed his act i on s. Tayl or , 885 S. W . 2d at158. T he func t i on of a j ur ychar ge 8 i s not“mer el yt o avoi d m i s l eadi ng orconfus i ng t he j ur y , ” but“t o l ead a nd t o pr event confus i on. ” H

u tch v . S ta te , 922 S. W . 2d 166, 170 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1996) ( quot i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 5 4 7 S .W .2 d 1 8 , 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 7 )) . A s th e trial ju d g e o b se rv e d , the re w a s a c lea r p o ss ib ili tyf o r ju ro r c o n f

u sio n d u e to t h e t e s t i m o n y A p p e l l a n te l i c i t e d f r o m h i s o w n w i t n e s s r e l a t i n g t o A p p e l l a n t ’ s “ l e n g t h y” hi s t or yof drug abus e: D efe ns e couns el : N ow , do y ou have a n opi ni on as t o [A ppel l ant ’ s ] m edi cal condi t i on? Psy chi atr i s t : Y es , I do. D e f e n se c o u n se l: W h a t is th a t? Psy chi atr i s t : . . . t her e’ s a hi s t or yof pol y s ubs t ance abus e and de pendenc y . A gai n,

a r ecor ded hi s t or yi n hi s r ecor ds t hathe has abus ed drugs and i ntoxi cants . N otonl ydi d defe ns e couns el encour age the di s cl os ur e of A ppel l ant ’ s drug us e, buthe
w ents o faras t o s ugges ta l i nk betw een the drug us e and A ppel l ant ’ s s y m pt om s on t he d ate o f th e o ff

en se. C laud ia ha d alread ytest ifi ed , in resp o n se to d ef en se c o u n sel’s ques t i oni ng, t hatA ppel l antw as “r es t l es s ” on the dat e of the off ens e, and thatA ppel l antSakil–Page8

bel i eved “ s om ebodyw as fol l ow i ng hi m , ” that“s om ebodyw as aft erhi m . ” Then, dur i ng h is d ire c t ex a m in a tio n o f th e p sy c h iatris t, de f

e n se c o u n se l as k e d if

th o se sy m p to m s c o u ld
r el at e t o drug us e: D e f e n se c o u n se l: W o u ld it b e u n u su a l f o r [ A p p e llan t] to b e m a k in g re p o rts o f p e o p le fol l ow i ng hi m orl ooki ng forhi m ? W oul d t hatbe us ual fora per s on l i k e h i m? Psy chi atr i s t : W el l , i n hi s par t i cul arcas e, he has expr es s ed thos e thought s and

problem s. D efe ns e couns el : N ow , y ou m ent i oned how s om e of thes e pr obl ems ca n be br ought

a b o u tb yd ru g a b u s e . W o u l d t h a tb e t h e wo r s e n i n g o f t h e p r o b l e m, orw oul d t hatbe the begi nni ng of t he pr obl em, orw oul d t he pr obl em l e a d t o d ru g a b u s e ? C o u l d yo u t e l l t h e J u r y? P sy chiatri st : W el l , his his t oryof d rug abu se appa rent l yi s r at her l eng t hy , so

there ’s sev era l w ay s y o u co u ld loo k at t h is. I t h ink fro m the v ery b e g in n in g th e su b sta n c e a b u se h a s c o n trib u ted to m a n yo f h is p ro b le m s . . . . T he ps y chi atr i s t ’ s l at ert es t i m ony , i n r es pons e t o ques t i oni ng fr om t he St at e, i ncr eas ed t he p o ssibil itythat the ju ryw o u ld d etec t a ca u se-a n d -ef fe ct relat ion sh ip b etw ee n A p p ell an t’ s drug us e and be havi or . H e s t at ed thatA ppel l ant ’ s drug hi s t or yi ncl uded the abus e of amphet ami nes , m ar i huana, al cohol , and her oi n; and he e xpl ai ned thata per s on abus i ng a m p h e ta m in e s b e c o m e s “ h yp e rs tim u la te d ,” “ p a ra n o id ,” a n d “ h yp e rv ig ila n t.” T he courtof appe al s concl uded thatt her e w as “i ns uffi ci entevi dence foranyfac t fi ndert o r eac h t he conc l us i on t hatA ppel l ant ’ s ps y chot i c beha vi orand r es ul t i ng as s aul ton hi s w i fe w as [s i c] caus ed byhi s i nt oxi cat i on. ” Sa k il , 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 4 2 3 0 , a t * 7 . W e di s agr ee. T he evi dence di d notes t abl i s h unequi vocal l yt hatA ppel l antw asSakil–Page9

Had Appe llant not pursued testimony relating to his bizarre behavior the da y of the 9 offe nse and his extensive history of substanceabuse, thefollowingfac ts would support Appellant’s position that “therewas no e videncefrom which thejury could conc lude Appellant was voluntarily

intox icated” : (1) he had just been re lease d from jail, so he did not havea signific ant amount of time to obtain drug s or alcohol, ( 2) Claudia reported to the 911 ope rator that App e lla

nt w a s n ot i nto xicate d at th e tim e of theof fens e , ( 3) Ap pe lla

nt s tate d th at hi s amphetamine useoccur

red at the ag e of e ighte en, and ( 4), he told the physician that he w as not takinghis medication for hallucinations at the time of the off ense. We p re vio us ly

fo un d a Se c tio n 8 .0 4( a) i ns tr

uc tio n a pp ro priatee ve n whe n o nly “ sli ght” 10 evidenc e sug g ested that a defendant’s ac tions were precipitated by druguse. Taylor , 885 S.W .2d at 158. We need not asse ss whether Appellant wa s harmed. 11 i nt oxi cat ed the dayof t he as s aul t . B utt her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur or 9 coul d concl ude thati nt oxi cat i on s om ehow excus ed A ppel l ant ’ s act i ons . B yi ns t ruct i ng 10 t he j ur yt hatvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on does notcons t i tut e a de fens e t o as s aul t , t he tr i al j udge pr oper l yut i l i zed the cha r ge’ s funct i on t o act i vel ypr eventconfus i on. T her efor e, t he inclu sion o f th e c o n test ed instruction d id n o t con sti tute erro r. 11 Fi nal l y , w e not e thatw e di s agr ee w i t h t he courtof appe al s ’ s as s es s m entof vol unt ary - i nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i ons i n gener al . T he courts t at ed thata Sect i on 8. 04( a) in stru c tio n “ e f

f e c tiv e lyc re a tes a p re su m p tio n th a t an in to x ica ted p e rso n h a s th e re q u isite
m ent al s t at e, ” and thus r el i eves “the St at e of i t s bur den of pr ovi ng al l el ement s of t he offe ns e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id
. at*9. T he courtbel i eved thatt he i ns t ruct i on “pl ace d a bur den on . . . A ppel l antt o pr ove thathe w as notvol unt ar i l yi nt oxi cat ed. ” I d. W e d o n o t u n d e rs ta n d th is re a d in g o f a v o lu n ta ry-in to x ic a tio n in s tr u c tio n . If a n y th in g , a vol unt ary - i nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i on act s t o r eaf fi r m t he ment al
- s t at e r equi r ement s , notSakil–Page10

del et e them. “[E] vi dence of [a n] appel l ant ’ s i nt oxi cat i on, i f any , does notnegat e the
e lem e n ts o f

in ten t o r k n o w led g e ” ; an d , the re f o re , w h e n th e e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t a defe ndantact ed undert he i nfl uence of a s ubs t ance , t he i ns t ruct i on oper at es t o i nfor m t he j ur yt hatt he el ement s of t he off ens e, i ncl udi ng t he r equi s i t e ment al s t at e, ar e notaff ect ed b ya n ye v id e n c e o f

in to x ic a tio n . H

a w k in s v . S ta te , 6 0 5 S . W . 2 d 5 8 6 , 5 8 9 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 8 0 ). In th is c a se , the in stru c tio n p re v e n ted e v id e n c e o f A p p e llan t’s p o ss ib le i nt oxi cat i on fr om al t er i ng t he j ur y ’ s under s t andi ng of t he cr i m e w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged: “i nt ent i onal l y , know i ngl y , orr eckl es s l y ” ca us i ng “bodi l yi nj ur yt o another . ” T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 2 2 . 0 1 (a) (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). M o reo v er, i f th e c o u rto f a p p ea ls’ s in ter p re tatio n w e re a c c u ra te– th a t a v o lu n tar y -in to x ica tio n in stru c tio n “ re liev e s th e S tate of i t s bur den of pr ovi ng al l el ement s of t he off ens e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ”–then, t he char ge w oul d be i nt ernal l ycontr adi ct or ybeca us e the cha r ge dec l ar es t he St at e’ s bur den: “The pr os ecut i on has t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he def endant ’ s gui l tand i tm us tdo s o by p ro v in g e a c h a n d e v e rye lem e n t o f th e o f f e n se c h a rg e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d if i tfai l s t o do s o, y ou m us tacqui tt he def endant . ” Sa k il , 2008 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4230, at *9. I V . C oncl usi on W e di s agr ee w i t h t he courtof appe al s ’ s concl us i on t hatt her e w as no evi dence of i nt oxi cat i on s uffi ci entt o r ai s e an i s s ue underSect i on 8. 04( a) . W e hol d t hati tw as not e r r o rt o i n c l u d e t h e v o l u n t a r y - i n t o x i c a t i o n i n s t ru c t i o n i n t h e j u r yc h a r g e , a n d t h e r e f o r e , weSakil–Page11

re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a n d a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt.

M e y e r s , J .

D el i ver ed: J ul y1, 2009 P ub l i sh