Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
81 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alfaro v. State (texapp, 2010-10-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alfaro v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) in the Matter of K.D.F.
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1993); McQueen , 781 S.W.2d at 602-05 ; Lynch v. State , 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Traylor v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307, 314 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Hill v. State, 765 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Woodfox v. State, 742 S.W.2d 408, 409-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Montgomery v. State, 588 S.W.2d 950, 952-53 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Miller v. State, 815 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (plurality). [2] The offense with which appellant in the instant case was charged provides that "[a] person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him." Tex…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Huizar, Joseph G. v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Lynch v. State , 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stagner v. State (2×)
Wyo. · 1992 · confidence medium
"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 on the issue." Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bruno v. State
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Gardner v. State (4×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schneider v. State
Tex. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Woodfox v. State, 742 S.W.2d 408, 409 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); also see Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woodfox v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).” The Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion rejected both points of error and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Gardner v. State (6×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
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.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crouch v. State
Tex. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Montgomery v. State, 588 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see" Andrew Whitaker v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Armando Gonzales v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodfox v. State, 779 S.W.2d 434, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), citing Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (rejecting the State’s contention that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense).
discussed Cited "see" Armando Gonzales v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodfox v. State , 779 S.W.2d 434, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), citing Lynch v. State , 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (rejecting the State’s contention that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense).
discussed Cited "see" Armando Gonzales v. State
Tex. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodfox v. State , 779 S.W.2d 434, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), citing Lynch v. State , 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (rejecting the State’s contention that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a strict liability criminal offense).
cited Cited "see" Posey v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
cited Cited "see" Chambless v. State
Tex. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.App.1983).
cited Cited "see" Williams v. State
Tex. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McQueen v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hill v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Lynch v. State, 643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
Carlton LYNCH, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
467-82.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan 12, 1983.
643 S.W.2d 737
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.
Odom.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published

[*738] OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ODOM, Judge.

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 See. 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.