Court Opinion

ID: 9666976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:31:44.490215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:36.402149
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction under a Pasadena municipal ordinance for negli*423gent collision. On original submission the Court held that the complaint on which appellant was brought to trial was void for failure to allege a culpable mental state. The complaint and the municipal ordinance are set out in full in the opinion on original submission.
The prior opinion in this case pointed out that the ordinance defined the offense in terms using a culpable mental state of negligence, a culpability distinct from each of the four established in Sec. 6.02 of the Penal Code. The complaint alleged the offense in the same terms, omitting any culpable mental state required by Sec. 6.02, supra. The ordinance itself expressly stated its intent to deviate from the Penal Code, by commencing, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 36.-76, CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS BY DEFINING THE TERM “NEGLIGENCE” WITHIN THE SECTION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PENAL CODE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.” (Emphasis added.)
On original submission the court held that Sec. 6.02, supra, does not permit such an introduction of a new culpable mental state not created by the Penal Code, and that V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 1.03(b) does not authorize deviations by municipal ordinance from the requirements of Sec. 6.02, supra. Consequently, it was held, the complaint was void for failure to allege a culpable mental state prescribed by the Penal Code.
On rehearing the State challenges the construction of Sec. 1.03(b), supra, with the argument that “statute” includes municipal ordinance. Sec. 1.03(a) and (b), in relevant part, provide:
“(a) Conduct does not constitute an offense unless it is defined as an offense by statute, municipal ordinance, order of a county commissioners court, or rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.
“(b) The provisions of Titles 1, 2, and 3 of this code apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise; ...” (Emphasis added.)
The State concedes that “statute” as used in Sec. 1.03(a) refers to legislative enactments, as held on original submission, and does not include municipal ordinances. In contrast, the State then argues that “statute” in Sec. 1.03(b) does include municipal ordinances, and thereby allows a municipality to escape the requirements of Sec. 6.02, supra. In essence the State’s argument is simply that if “statute” in Sec. 1.03(b) does not include municipal ordinance, then “only a ‘statute defining the offense’ can make Titles 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to ‘an offense defined as an offense ... by municipal ordinance.’ ” This, asserts the State, creates an inconsistency in the statute. We perceive no such inconsistency.
We find the plain intent of Sec. 1.03(b) to be that only an act of the legislature may remove an offense from the general principles established in the first three titles of the code. The legislature used “statute” in Sec. 1.03(b) because it did not intend to grant municipalities, county commissioners courts, and rule making authorities the power to remove whatever offenses they created from such code provisions as the general requirements of culpability stated in chapter 6 of the code, the law of parties of chapter 7, the defenses of chapter 8, such as insanity, duress, and age affecting criminal responsibility, and the justifications of chapter 9, such as public duty, necessity, and the law of protection of persons and property. If the State’s argument were correct, a municipal ordinance could create an offense establishing criminal liability irrespective of the existence of any such legislatively codified general rules of culpability, defenses and justifications. A municipality could even abrogate application of the preemption doctrine itself, of V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 1.08, if we adopted the construction of Sec. 1.03(b), supra, proposed by the State. We reject the State’s construction of Sec. 1.03(b) and hold that “statute” as used in that section refers to enactments of the legislature, and was intended to reserve to the legislature the power to define offenses in abrogation of *424the provisions of Titles 1, 2 and 3 of the Code,1 which include the culpable mental state requirements of Sec. 6.02, supra.
In another argument on rehearing the State proposes that even if the ordinance is subject to the requirements of Sec. 6.02, supra, the provision in the ordinance of a culpable mental state of simple negligence constitutes compliance. We do not agree.
Sec. 6.02, supra, in relevant part provides:
“(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
“(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
“(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b) of this section, intent, knowledge, or recklessness sufficies to establish criminal responsibility.”
Sec. 6.02(a) states the general rule: one of the four culpable mental states defined in the Penal Code is an essential element of every offense. The exceptions to the general rule are stated in Sec. 6.02(b) and (c): if the definition of the offense does not include a culpable mental state as required by the general rule, then intent, knowledge, or recklessness is the applicable mental state unless the definition of the offense clearly dispenses with any mental element, so that no culpable mental state is required.
The ordinance does not include one of the four culpable mental states in the definition of negligent collision, so the general rule of Sec. 6.02(a) is not satisfied and Sec. 6.02(b) must be consulted. The definition of negligent collision also does not plainly dispense with any culpable mental state, since it does attempt to apply a new culpable mental state not created by the Penal Code. Therefore, under Sec. 6.02(b), a culpable mental state is required, and under See. 6.02(c), the minimum required culpability is recklessness. An allegation of simple negligence does not comply with the requirements of Sec. 6.02, supra.
The decision on original submission properly concluded that the complaint in this case is fundamentally defective for failure to allege a culpable mental state.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
ROBERTS, J., concurs in the results.

. Title 3, Punishment, is a special case, as provided in the closing portion of Sec. 1.03(b), not quoted in this opinion and not at issue in this case.