Court Opinion

ID: 9663037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:32.079528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.072855
License: Public Domain

COHEN, Justice,
concurring on Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review.
This concurring opinion is issued pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 101.
I agree that this ease should be affirmed based on Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214, 217-19 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), but I find Ross, as well as Reed v. State, 916 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1996, pet ref'd), unpersuasive. Neither opinion adequately explains why Penal Code sections 6.02(b) and (c) do not require that a culpable mental state be alleged and proved in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated. Section 6.02 plainly requires a culpable mental state for offenses within the Penal Code, and section 1.03(b) requires it for offenses outside the Penal Code, as DWI was when Ross was decided.
Ross and Reed have construed these statutes as though they did not exist. However, the legislature, whose intent in enacting sections 1.03 and 6.02 has been frustrated, has met many times without enacting legislation to change the rule in Ross. Thus, I must concede that Texas law on this subject is well settled, even if erroneously settled. I am bound to follow it.
WILSON, J., joins this opinion.