Court Opinion

ID: 9678514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:27.170365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.077243
License: Public Domain

KELLER, P.J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
The Court holds that a habitation inherently provides notice that entry is forbidden. I agree, but not for all of the reasons relied upon by the Court. Section 30.05(b)(2)(B) defines “notice” to include an “enclosure obviously designed to ex-elude intruders.” Habitations are enclosures and, by their nature, they are obviously designed to exclude intruders, so I would resolve this case simply by reference to the statutory definition of “notice.”
But the Court also relies upon common experience and societal norms to reach its conclusion. We instituted a bright-line rule in Hall,1 and some day we may need to resort to non-statutory guidance in a manner that erodes that bright line. I just don’t think we need to do it here.
With these comments, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

. 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).