scienter requirement in Texas

2016See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Garcia v. State, 212 S.W.3d 877, 889 (Tex.App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).

2016See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Garcia v. State, 212 S.W.3d 877, 889 (Tex.App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).

2006See Wisenbaker v. State, 860 S.W.2d 681, 689 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, pet. ref'd); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 .

2006See Wisenbaker v. State, 860 S.W.2d 681, 689 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, pet. ref'd); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 .

2025See Doyal, 589 S.W.3d at 146.3 In fact, in his brief filed before the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded section 43.262(b) has a comprehensive scienter requirement, Lowry recognized the effect such requirement would have by stating, “Section 43.262 might have passed the vagueness test had the statute included a requirement that the offending person subjectively believe that the material they possessed was lewd, appealed to the prurient interest, and had no serious societal value[.]” 3 See also McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186, 197 (2015) (“Under our precedents, a scienter requirement i

2020See McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186, 197 (2015); see also Ex parte Barrett, 608 S.W.3d at 96 (explaining that by “imposing the scienter requirement that the trafficking conduct be done knowingly and with intent, the statute excludes the possibility that innocent acts of transportation could be construed as ‘trafficking’ a child”).

1998Cases such as [ New York v .] Ferber, 458 U.S., [747] at 765, 102 S.Ct., [3348] at 3359 [, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)] ("As with obscenity laws, criminal responsibility may not be imposed without some element of scienter on the part of the defendant"); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 115 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1699 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990), suggest that a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise s

1998Cases such as [New York v.] Ferber, 458 U.S., [747] at 765, 102 S.Ct., [3348] at 3359 [, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)] (“As with obscenity laws, criminal responsibility may not be imposed without some element of scienter on the part of the defendant”); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 115 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1699 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990), suggest that a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise seri

1998Cases such as [ New York v .] Ferber, 458 U.S., [747] at 765, 102 S.Ct., [3348] at 3359 [, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)] ("As with obscenity laws, criminal responsibility may not be imposed without some element of scienter on the part of the defendant"); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 115 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1699 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990), suggest that a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise s

1998Cases such as [ New York v .] Ferber, 458 U.S., [747] at 765, 102 S.Ct., [3348] at 3359 [, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)] ("As with obscenity laws, criminal responsibility may not be imposed without some element of scienter on the part of the defendant"); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 115 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1699 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990), suggest that a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise s

2022See id. §§ 841.002(8), .003(a); see also Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d at 649 (stating that the SVP Act “lacks the scienter requirement typically found in criminal statutes”).

2018Additionally, the Camera Laws “lack the scienter requirement typically found in criminal statutes.” Fisher, 164 S.W.3d at 649 .

2021Indeed, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court has “interpreted statutes to include a scienter requirement even where the most grammatical reading of the statute does not support one.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021Indeed, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court has “interpreted statutes to include a scienter requirement even where the most grammatical reading of the statute does not support one.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009Gonzales v. Carhart , 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1628 (2007).

2009See Gonzalez, 127 S. Ct. at 1628 ; see also Acuna , 929 P.2d at 613 (1997) (holding with respect to similar gang injunctions that trial courts should find the requirement of defendant’s knowledge to be implied in the injunction). 7: Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating both. 8: The provisions are identical, and Appellant was charged and convicted for violating both.

2009See Gonzalez, 127 S. Ct. at 1628 ; see also Acuna , 929 P.2d at 613 (1997) (holding with respect to similar gang injunctions that trial courts should find the requirement of defendant’s knowledge to be implied in the injunction). 7: Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating both. 8: The provisions are identical, and Appellant was charged and convicted for violating both.

2009See Gonzalez, 127 S. Ct. at 1628 ; see also Acuna, 929 P.2d at 613 (1997) (holding with respect to similar gang injunctions that trial courts should find the requirement of defendant’s knowledge to be implied in the injunction). 15 Gang hand signs Appellant argues that provision 16 of the temporary injunction and provision 15 of the permanent injunction 7 create an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

1987Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.1985); Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz, 665 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.1984).

1985Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.1985); Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz, 665 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.1984).

1987Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.1985); Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz, 665 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.1984).

1985Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.1985); Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz, 665 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.1984).

2024The Court stated that “a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise serious constitutional doubts,” but because of that, the Court stated it was “incumbent upon us to read the statute to eliminate those doubts so long as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.” Id. at 78 .

2024The Court stated that “a statute completely bereft of a scienter requirement as to the age of the performers would raise serious constitutional doubts,” but because of that, the Court stated it was “incumbent upon us to read the statute to eliminate those doubts so long as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.” Id. at 78 .

2012Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 536 , 119 S.Ct. 2118, 2125 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999)).

2012Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 536 , 119 S.Ct. 2118, 2125 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999)).

2004The only case the Advertisers cite in support of their contention that non-criminal statutes regulating commercial speech must have a scienter requirement is an Eighth Circuit case, Video Software Dealers Ass = n v. Webster , 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992).

2004The only case the Advertisers cite in support of their contention that non-criminal statutes regulating commercial speech must have a scienter requirement is an Eighth Circuit case, Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir.1992).

2025See Doyal, 589 S.W.3d at 146.3 In fact, in his brief filed before the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded section 43.262(b) has a comprehensive scienter requirement, Lowry recognized the effect such requirement would have by stating, “Section 43.262 might have passed the vagueness test had the statute included a requirement that the offending person subjectively believe that the material they possessed was lewd, appealed to the prurient interest, and had no serious societal value[.]” 3 See also McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186, 197 (2015) (“Under our precedents, a scienter requirement i

2025See Wagner, 539 S.W.3d at 314 .

2023See First Cash, Ltd., 538 S.W.3d at 195 . 3 We observe that the Board’s interpretation, wherein intent to cause harm is not required, is similar to that of the definition for the offense of criminal terroristic threat.

2023See Stark, 213 S.W.3d at 416 . 3 Nothing in Standard 1.9 expressly requires a specific scienter requirement; thus, the Board’s interpretation that it does not require an intent to cause harm is not contrary to the plain language of the rule.

2023Co. v. Villeneuve, 60 S.W. 1014, 1015 (Tex. Civ.

2016See id. 581-83 ; Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (analyzing, indecency with a child statute and holding that the State is not required to show defendant knew the victim was younger than seventeen years of age); Byrne v. State, 358 S.W.3d 745, 749-52 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (analyzing section 22.011(a)(2)(A) and holding that the absence of á mens rea requirement in the statute does not render it unconstitutional under either the federal or state constitution); Scott v. State, 36 S.W.3d 240, 241-43 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. refd) (analyzin

2016See id. 581-83 ; Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (analyzing, indecency with a child statute and holding that the State is not required to show defendant knew the victim was younger than seventeen years of age); Byrne v. State, 358 S.W.3d 745, 749-52 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (analyzing section 22.011(a)(2)(A) and holding that the absence of á mens rea requirement in the statute does not render it unconstitutional under either the federal or state constitution); Scott v. State, 36 S.W.3d 240, 241-43 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. refd) (analyzin

2016See id. 581-83 ; Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (analyzing, indecency with a child statute and holding that the State is not required to show defendant knew the victim was younger than seventeen years of age); Byrne v. State, 358 S.W.3d 745, 749-52 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (analyzing section 22.011(a)(2)(A) and holding that the absence of á mens rea requirement in the statute does not render it unconstitutional under either the federal or state constitution); Scott v. State, 36 S.W.3d 240, 241-43 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. refd) (analyzin

2016See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Garcia v. State, 212 S.W.3d 877, 889 (Tex.App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).