From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lynch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jan 12, 1983
643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)

Summary

rejecting the State's contention that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. State

Opinion

No. 467-82.

January 12, 1983.

Appeal from District Court, Harris County, Sam Robertson, J.

Stanley C. Kirk, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Ray Elvin Speece and J.R. Seeman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.


OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


Appellant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 31.07. Punishment, enhanced under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 12.42(d), is life. Appellant's petition to review the Court of Appeals' decision, 635 S.W.2d 172 (1982), was granted so that we could consider whether it was error to refuse appellant's requested charge on the defense of mistake of fact. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 8.02.

Appellant testified in his own behalf, telling the jury in substance that an acquaintance had given him the keys to the van in question so he could borrow the van to pick up his motorcycle from a repair shop. The question is whether the defensive evidence raised the issue of mistake of fact, because if it did appellant was entitled to an affirmative submission of the issue. Montgomery v. State, 588 S.W.2d 950; London v. State, 547 S.W.2d 27.

Sec. 8.02, supra, provides in relevant part:

"(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense."

The Court of Appeals overruled the ground of error because the charge on the offense required the jury to find the intent element of the offense. This approach overlooked the rule that entitles a defendant to an affirmative submission of defenses raised by the evidence. See Montgomery and London, supra. The Court of Appeals relied on Musgrave v. State, 608 S.W.2d 184. That case, however, concerned the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The issue presented here is whether the evidence raised the defense of mistake of fact. Here appellant presented evidence that his use of the van was with the permission of the person who gave him the keys and who was apparently authorized to consent to use of the vehicle. To hold such innocent use is no defense would be to make Sec. 31.07, supra, a strict liability offense. The evidence raised the issue of whether appellant was operating under a mistake of fact. It was error to refuse the requested charge on that defense.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court.


Summaries of

Lynch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jan 12, 1983
643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)

rejecting the State's contention that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. State

In Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983), a unanimous Court rejected the State's contention that unauthorized use of motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense.

Summary of this case from Woodfox v. State

In Lynch, supra, the appellant's petition for discretionary review was granted so that this Court could consider whether it was error to refuse appellant's requested charge on the defense of mistake of fact.

Summary of this case from Hill v. State

In Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983), the court recognized that an appellant is entitled to present a mistake of fact defense in an unauthorized use prosecution.

Summary of this case from Gardner v. State

In Lynch, the court held that where the defendant presented evidence that his use of the vehicle was with permission of the person who gave him the keys and was apparently authorized to consent to his using the vehicle, the evidence raised the defense of mistake of fact.

Summary of this case from Dubose v. State
Case details for

Lynch v. State

Case Details

Full title:Carlton LYNCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Jan 12, 1983

Citations

643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Woodfox v. State

The reason for entertaining review is that the Court of Appeals decision is in conflict with decisions from…

Posey v. State

We assume it was because if the evidence raises an issue on mistake of fact, as it did in Herbert, the…