Court Opinion

ID: 9765532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:05:30.862863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.890402
License: Public Domain

BERCHELMANN, Justice,
concurring.
While I join the majority opinion, I author this concurrence to emphasize that I treat the owner’s stipulated testimony that no one had consent to use his motor vehicle as sufficient evidence to prove that appellant knew he did not have the owner’s consent. See and compare Gardner v. State, 780 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) (Berchelmann, J., dissenting).
Appellant’s ability to have his mistake of fact defense as to this element of § 31.07 considered by the trier of fact negates any unfounded concern that § 31.07 is a “strict liability” statute. Id. See also Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
With this emphasized, I join the majority opinion.