Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Linda Carol Wilcher AKA Linda Carol South v. State (texapp, 2016-12-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Linda Carol Wilcher AKA Linda Carol South v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“The offense of driving while intoxicated is a strict liability crime meaning that it does not require a specific mental state (e.g., intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly intending to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated), only a person on a public roadway voluntarily operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.” Farmer, 411 S.W.3d at 905 (citing Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164, 164-65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frank Navarro v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
App. 2013) (citing Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164, 164-65 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Farmer, Kody William (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State , 525 S.W.2d 164, 164-65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Farmer, Kody William
Tex. Crim. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 , 164–65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" State v. John Hardy Taylor
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 475–77.
cited Cited "see" Angela K. Spence v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Id . § 49.11; see Owen v. State , 525 S.W.2d 164 , 164–65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Angela K. Spence v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. § 49.11; see Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 , 164–65 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164, 164-65 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214, 217 (Tex. Crim.App.1975) (criminal or unlawful intent not essential element of driving while intoxicated), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018 , 96 S.Ct. 454 , 46 L.Ed.2d 390 (1975), abrogated on other grounds by Ex parte McCain, 67 S.W.3d 204, 207, 209 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).
cited Cited "see" Scott C. Brown v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 , 164–65 6 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Scott C. Brown v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State , 525 S.W.2d 164 , 164–65 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Ex Parte Weise
Tex. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen, 525 S.W.2d at 164 (appellant assessed 30 days in jail for driving while intoxicated).
cited Cited "see" American Plant Food Corp. v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Cr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chunn v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164, 164 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Reed v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 219 ; see also Owen v. State, 525 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Bessie OWEN, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
50241.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jul 23, 1975.
525 S.W.2d 164
E. D. Forbes, Dallas, for appellant., Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell Tem-pleton, Brady Sparks, and Tom Clayton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Dally.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the misdemeanor offense of driving and operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated, which the proof shows was committed on February 1, 1974. The punishment assessed was confinement in the county jail for thirty days and a fine of fifty dollars.

The appellant urges that this conviction is void because the pleadings do not allege and the proof does not show that the appellant either intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence committed the offense of driving and operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated. She argues that V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 1.03(b) and 6.02 now require that the state allege and prove that an accused had one of these culpable mental states when committing the offense of driving while intoxicated. The contention made here by the appellant is the same as was made by the petitioner in Ex parte Ross, 522 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). This Court in that case rejected the petitioner’s contention with a well reasoned explanation which need not be repeated here. The holding in that appeal was that the Legislature by enactment of Sections 1.03(b) and 6.02 of the new Penal Code did not intend to require proof of a culpable mental state in prosecutions for driving[*165] while intoxicated. The appellant’s ground of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.