Gray v. State , 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2143 ( 2004 )

OPINION

KEASLER, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court,

joined by KELLER, P.J., and WOMACK, HERVEY, and HOLCOMB, JJ.

The State charged Thomas Kerr Gray, III, with driving while intoxicated due to alcohol consumption. Evidence at trial showed that Gray was taking anti-depressant medication at the time. The jury instructions authorized finding that Gray was intoxicated if he took drugs which made him more susceptible to the influence of alcohol than he otherwise would have been, and therefore became intoxicated from the alcohol. We conclude that this jury charge properly applied the law to the facts of this case.

I. FACTS

The day after Tropical Storm Allison flooded Houston in 2001, Michael White-sides was driving his brand new pick-up truck on a wet, muddy road. The car behind him, he later learned, was driven by 17-year-old Gray. He noticed Gray because Gray “seemed ... unaware” and “was one foot off [Whitesides’s] bumper.” When Whitesides’s tires inevitably sprayed mud on Gray’s windshield, Gray “erratically pulled to the median,” then “cut back into traffic, across the inside lane, cutting people off. [He] got to the outside lane, and approached [Whitesides] from the rear at a high rate of speed.” Gray then rear-ended Whitesides’s truck. When White-sides approached Gray to confront him, Gray’s radio was playing “very loud” and Gray was “not acting normal, at all.”

The police arrived and, noticing Gray’s constricted pupils and the smell of alcohol on his breath, conducted field sobriety tests. Gray failed the tests and was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Gray told the police that he was taking antidepressant medication.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State charged Gray by information with misdemeanor DWI, alleging that he “did then and there unlawfully while intoxicated, namely not having the normal use of his mental and physical faculties by the reason of the introduction of ALCOHOL into his body, operate a motor vehicle in a public place.”

Gray’s father testified at trial that Gray had been undergoing treatment for psychological problems for the last three years. He had been prescribed four medications — Respiratol, Zoloft, Klonopin, and Depical — during the general time period of the accident, but on that day he was taking two or three of them. His father indicated that the medications caused “disorientation” and “dizziness.” Gray’s father also testified that Gray was not drinking any alcohol that day — -“he couldn’t have.”

Gray’s stepmother testified that Gray was on three medications at the time of the accident. She also said that he had just started taking Depical three days before the incident and that Depical made him very disoriented.

The State’s chemist testified that the drugs were anti-depressants that have a depressant effect on the central nervous system. Alcohol had the same effect. “And, when you add one depressant medication to another depressant medication, it can have, what’s called, an ‘addictive [sic ] effect.’ Sometimes, what’s described as a ‘synergistic effect.’ Where the two medications interact in an inappropriate way and accelerate the action of one medication.” She said that effect could manifest itself even if the person had only a small amount of alcohol.

The court’s proposed jury charge stated as follows:

You are further instructed that if a Defendant indulges in the use of a drug, to wit, Respiratol, Zoloft, Klonopin, and/or Depical, to such an extent that he thereby makes himself more susceptible to the influence of alcohol than he otherwise would have been, and by reason thereof becomes intoxicated from recent use of alcohol, he would be in the same position as though his intoxication was produced by the use of alcohol alone.

The application paragraph of the charge instructed the jury to convict if it found that Gray was driving while intoxicated “by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body, either alone or in combination with Respiratol, Zoloft, Klonopin and/or Depical.”

Gray objected to the charge on the grounds that it did not follow the State’s information. The prosecutor responded that the charge was appropriate under Sutton v. State.² The judge overruled Gray’s objection.

The jury found Gray guilty of misdemeanor DWI, and the judge assessed punishment at 180 days in the Harris County Jail, suspended for one year.

III. ON APPEAL

On appeal, Gray argued that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the “synergistic effect” of drugs and alcohol because (1) it was not part of the law applicable to the case, (2) it was a comment on the weight of the evidence, (3) it was misleading and confusing, and (4) Gray was not prosecuted under a combination theory. The Court of Appeals disagreed.³ It concluded, in relevant part, that the charge incorporated the law applicable to the case, relying on our plurality opinion in Sutton.⁴

Gray petitioned this Court for discretionary review on two grounds. We granted the second ground, which contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the instruction constituted the law applicable to the case when Gray was not charged with intoxication by a combination of alcohol and drugs.

IV. ANALYSIS

Our Legislature has made clear that a trial judge’s charge to the jury must set forth “the law applicable to the case.”⁵ Relying on that statute, we have held that “[a] trial court is required to fully instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case and to apply that law to the facts presented.” ⁶ It is not enough for the charge to merely incorporate the allegation in the charging instrument. Instead, it must also apply the law to the facts adduced at trial. This is because “[t]he jury must be instructed ‘under what circumstances they should convict, or under what circumstances they should acquit’.”⁷ Jury charges which fail to apply the law to the facts adduced at trial are erroneous.⁸

This case involves a specific kind of jury charge known as the “synergistic effect” charge. We begin with the background of this charge.

A. The Synergistic Effect Charge

Originally, our DWI statute did not define “intoxication.” In Heard v. State,⁹ we addressed a synergistic effect charge under that statute. (Although Heard was decided after the statute had been changed, the defendant’s offense had occurred under the previous version of the statute.) There, the information alleged driving under the influence of liquor. During trial, the defense presented evidence that the defendant had been taking several medications at the time of the offense. The evidence showed that the medications combined with alcohol “might cause an individual to lose his or her mental alertness quicker than if he or she was drinking only alcohol.”¹⁰

The jury charge instructed the jury that “if a Defendant indulges in the use of drugs to such an extent that he thereby makes himself more susceptible to the influence of intoxicating liquor than he otherwise would have been and by reason thereof becomes intoxicated from the recent use of intoxicating liquor, he would be in the same position as though his intoxication was produced by the use of intoxicating liquor alone.”¹¹ The application paragraph of the charge then told the jury it could convict if it found that the defendant was “under the influence of intoxicating liquor, either alone or in combination with drugs.”¹²

We found this charge to be proper because it applied the law to the facts of the case. We explained that the “combination of liquor and drugs which would make an individual more susceptible to the influence of the liquor is in effect equivalent to intoxication by liquor alone.”¹³

The 68th Legislature amended the DWI statute, effective January 1, 1984.¹⁴ After that amendment, the statute defined “intoxicated” as, among other things, “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances into the body.”¹⁵

We addressed the effect of this statutory change on DWI charging instruments in Garcia v. State.¹⁶ There, the information charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated. It did not specify whether the intoxication was a result of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. As a result, the defendant moved to quash. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion should have been granted.¹⁷

We agreed with the Court of Appeals. We concluded that, to provide sufficient notice to a defendant, a charging instrument alleging intoxication under the new DWI statute had to allege the intoxicant.¹⁸ Having reached that conclusion, we then added that, since the statute defined different methods of becoming intoxicated, “the type of intoxicant used ... becomes an element of the offense and critically necessary to the State’s proof.”¹⁹ In the following and final paragraph of the opinion, we returned to the notice rationale, concluding that the defendant in Garcia had been denied notice and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash.²⁰

Our holding in Garcia seemed to call Heard into question. In Heard, we had concluded that a synergistic effect jury charge was permissible even if a combination theory had not been alleged in the charging instrument. But at the time of Heard, the DWI statute did not define intoxication, and the State was not required to allege the intoxicant in the charging instrument to provide the defendant notice. Moreover, at the time of Heard, the intoxicant was not an element of the offense. Now, under Garcia, the State was required to allege the intoxicant in its charging instrument both for notice and because the intoxicant was an element of the offense. And the new statute specifically put forth the option of alleging “a combination” theory of intoxication. Under this new statute and these new pleading requirements, could a jury still be charged on the synergistic effect of more than one intoxicant if the State had not alleged a “combination” theory in its indictment?

We were faced with that question in Sutton v. State,²¹ and the Court was unable to reach a majority. In that case, the information charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated due to alcohol. At trial, the defendant testified that he had taken two pills of a prescription medication which, when mixed with two beers, put him in a “precarious situation.”²² The defense expert testified that the prescription medication could cause a person to appear intoxicated and that alcohol would enhance the effect of the drug.²³ The judge instructed the jury on the synergistic effect of the prescription medication and alcohol, permitting the jury to convict if it found that “the defendant was intoxicated by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body, either alone or in combination with Klonopin.”²⁴

A four-judge plurality concluded that these facts were identical to Heard and that our opinion in Heard was dispositive.²⁵ The plurality stated that the jury charge did not expand on the allegations in the information; rather, it'“allowed conviction only if the jury found that [the defendant] had been intoxicated with alcohol, either alone or in combination with a drug that made him more susceptible to the alcohol. In either case, the jury had to find that [the defendant] had been intoxicated with alcohol, not with the drug.”²⁶ The plurality also noted that “[o]nce [the defendant] introduced this evidence, the trial court was obligated to instruct the jury on the law as explicated in Heard.”²⁷ The plurality did not discuss the fact that the DWI statute had changed since Heard. And it concluded that Garcia was irrelevant because Garcia had involved a motion to quash, and Sutton had not filed such a motion.²⁸

Four judges dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Maloney argued that the plurality failed to “account for changes in the controlling statute”²⁹ and that the plurality’s “reasoning might have made sense at the time of the Court’s opinion in Heard since at that time there was no separate statutory category for a combination of drugs and alcohol, [but] it is not consistent with the current version of the statute.”³⁰

The law was still in this uneasy state when we decided Rodriguez v. State³¹ several years ago. There, the indictment alleged that the defendant drove while intoxicated due to alcohol. At trial, defense evidence showed that the defendant had been taking Contac, an over-the-counter medication, which made him drowsy. The State’s expert then testified to the effects of Contac as well as the effects of mixing Contac with alcohol. The charge defined “intoxicated” as not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties “by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a drug, or a combination of both of those substances, into the body.”³² The application paragraph of the charge then permitted the jury to convict if it found that the defendant was intoxicated “by the reason of the introduction of a combination of unknown drugs and alcohol into his body.”³³

We recognized that this jury charge was a far cry from the ones in Heard and Sutton. In those cases, the charge allowed conviction only if the jury found that the defendant had been intoxicated with alcohol, either alone or in combination with a drug that made him more susceptible to the alcohol. But in Rodriguez, the charge allowed the jury to convict if it found the defendant was intoxicated by a combination of unknown drugs and alcohol. There was “no ‘additional susceptibility’ theory put to the jury.”³⁴ It therefore “improperly expanded on the allegations set forth in the information, and authorized a conviction on a theory not alleged in the charging instrument.”³⁵

We noted in Rodriguez that, “despite its reliance on Heard, the [Sutton] plurality placed no significance on the fact that the type of intoxicant was not an element of the offense under the statute in Heard but was an element of the offense under the statute.”³⁶ We resolved Rodriguez without having to address that issue because “regardless of one’s view of the relevance of Garcia to this issue, the jury charge in this case falls short of the requirement established in Sutton.”³⁷

B. Application

In this case, the State alleged that Gray was under the influence of alcohol while driving, and Gray presented evidence that he was under the influence of anti-depressants at the time of the offense. The trial judge’s charge to the jury incorporated both the State’s allegation and the evidence presented at trial by instructing the jury that it should convict if it found that Gray had indulged in the drugs “to such an extent that he thereby makes himself more susceptible to the influence of alcohol than he otherwise would have been, and by reason thereof becomes intoxicated from recent use of alcohol.” Under our caselaw, this charge instructed the jury on the law applicable to the case and applied that law to the facts presented.³⁸ So this was a standard “synergistic effect,” and therefore valid, jury charge.

Gray disagrees, arguing that this charge expanded on the scope of the State’s information. He says that according to Garcia, the intoxicant is an element of the offense of DWI. Since the DWI statute under which Gray was charged lists six possible (though overlapping) intoxicants — “alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance”³⁹ — Gray argues that the State must allege which intoxicant and prove that same intoxicant. By allowing the State to allege “alcohol” but prove “combination,” Gray says, the State is permitted to expand upon the theory alleged in the charging instrument, violating due process.

The State responds that this charge was virtually identical to the one given in Sutton. It also contends that Garcia is poorly reasoned and should be overruled. Gray replies that it is actually Sutton that is poorly reasoned.

1. Intoxicant as Element of Offense

We begin with Garcia’s statement that the intoxicant is an element of the offense of DWI.

Due process provides that no person may be convicted of a criminal offense unless every element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴⁰ Our Penal Code defines the elements of the offense to be the forbidden conduct, the required culpability, any required result, and the negation of any exception to the offense.⁴¹ As a practical matter, we define the elements of individual offenses on a case-by-case basis. Under the previous statute, V.A.T.S. Art. 6701 i-1, we held that the elements of misdemeanor DWI were that: (1) a person (2) drives or operates (3) a motor vehicle (4) in a public place (5) while intoxicated.⁴² The current statute, § 49.04(a), says essentially the same thing as the previous one, and the elements of the offense are: (a) a person (b) is intoxicated (c) while operating (d) a motor vehicle (e) in a public place.

In Garcia, we said that an additional element was the type of intoxicant. We made this statement even though- the disputed issue in the case concerned notice. As a result, the statement was dicta, unnecessary to the resolution of the case. Moreover, we did not cite any authority for this conclusion, nor did we explain it. There are several problems with the statement.

First, it contradicts the statutory definitions of what constitutes an element of the offense. The intoxicant is not the forbidden conduct, the required culpability, any required result, or the negation of any exception to the offense.⁴³ The mere fact that the DWI statute separately defines intoxication does not automatically elevate the intoxicant to the status of an element of the offense.

Second, Garcia’s dicta conflicts with our caselaw regarding elements of other offenses. In Ex parte Luna,⁴⁴ we addressed a similar issue with regard to the theft statute. There we concluded that the definitions of “unlawfully” in § 31.03 were not essential elements of theft, but were evi-dentiary matters that need not be alleged in order to sufficiently charge the offense of theft.⁴⁵ Like the theft statute, the DWI statute defines “intoxicated,” but that does not mean that the various intoxicants are elements of the offense. Instead, they are descriptive terms.

Third, making the intoxicant an element of the offense constitutes bad public policy. As the State points out, when we concluded that the intoxicant was an element of the offense, the intent of the statute was thwarted, and trials degenerated into ones like this one, where the defense is essentially “Yes, I was intoxicated, but you alleged the wrong intoxicant, therefore I am entitled to an acquittal.” We agree with the State that permitting defendants to “secure an acquittal merely by proving an alternative intoxicant” constitutes “an abuse of the system ... contrary to the plain meaning of the DWI statute, which focuses on the acts of the defendant while intoxicated rather than the act of becoming intoxicated itself.”

We conclude that the substance that causes intoxication is not an element of the offense. It is not the forbidden conduct, the required culpability, any required result, or the negation of any exception to the offense. Instead, it is an evidentiary matter. We disavow the dicta in Garcia to the contrary.

2. Sutton v. State

Doing away with Garcia’s element-of-the-offense language disposes of Gray’s claim that due process was violated due to the State alleging one offense and convicting on another. But it does not refute Gray’s argument entirely. We still must address whether this jury charge expanded on the allegations in the State’s charging instrument. For this, we return to Sutton.

In Sutton, the information alleged alcohol as the intoxicant, and the evidence at trial showed drugs and alcohol. The judge instructed the jury on the synergistic effect of prescription medication and alcohol. The plurality said that the jury charge did not expand on the allegations in the information; rather, it “allowed conviction only if the jury found that [the defendant] had been intoxicated with alcohol, either alone or in combination with a drug that made him more susceptible to the alcohol. In either case, the jury had to find that [the defendant] had been intoxicated with alcohol, not with the drug.”⁴⁶ The charge in this case, being nearly identical to the one in Sutton, should be valid, unless there is some reason that the Sutton plurality erred.

Gray argues that Sutton is “flat-out wrong” because the plurality failed “to come to grips with the fact” that the statute changed after Heard was decided. It is true that the DWI statute was amended after Heard. But we believe the Sutton plurality was still correct.

Gray argues that if the statute provides for six different intoxicants, then the jury charge must include only the intoxicant alleged in the State’s charging instrument, otherwise the jury charge expands on the scope of the State’s allegations. But there are two flaws in this position. First, the jury charge in this case did not permit the jury to convict on a completely separate intoxicant. Instead, it permitted conviction if the consumption of one intoxicant made Gray more susceptible, and therefore intoxicated, by the charged intoxicant. So even if Gray’s premise were correct, this particular jury charge would be valid because it still required the jury to find that Gray was intoxicated due to alcohol, which is what the State alleged.

Second, the six possible definitions of intoxication in the statute are not mutually exclusive — indeed, they are patently overlapping. The definitions of intoxication in the DWI statute are in this way unique from other criminal statutes. An allegation of “controlled substance” overlaps with “drug” and “dangerous drug.” An allegation of “combination” overlaps with “alcohol” and “drug.” As a result, these are not really six different intoxicants.

Here, the State alleged intoxication by alcohol, and the jury charge permitted finding intoxication by alcohol if the defendant was more susceptible to the alcohol due to drugs. This charge did not permit conviction on a theory unalleged in the charging instrument. This is still the same theory of committing DWI — the “loss of faculties” theory.⁴⁷

Gray also argues that the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and therefore, Sutton, conflicts with Rodriguez. We disagree. As explained above, the jury charge in Rodriguez was quite different from the one in Sutton. The charge in Rodriguez did not put forth an “additional susceptibility theory” to the jury. It therefore “improperly expanded on the allegations set forth in the information, and authorized a conviction on a theory not alleged in the charging instrument.”⁴⁸ The same is not true here or in Sutton. In both this case and in Sutton, the charge permitted conviction only if the drugs made the defendant more susceptible to the alcohol. Both this charge and the one in Sutton still required intoxication due to alcohol.

We conclude that the Sutton plurality was correct to uphold the synergistic effect jury charge, even though the DWI statute changed after Heard. The charge in this case was essentially identical to the one in Sutton and different from the one in Rodriguez. It permitted the jury to convict if Gray’s drug use made him more susceptible to alcohol, but it still required intoxication due to alcohol. Therefore, it did not expand on the allegations in the charging instrument, and it properly applied the law to the facts of the case.

Judge Cochran contends in dissent that we should dispense with synergistic jury charges entirely, but we do not believe her arguments rise to our high standard for overruling precedent.⁴⁹ Additionally, the crux of her argument is really that this charge was a comment on the weight of the evidence. But that issue was presented in Gray’s first ground for review, which we refused. We do not address that claim today. Judge Meyers argues that this charge was erroneous because it permitted the jury to convict Gray on an allegation not within the charging instrument. But as discussed above, this charge still required the jury to find that Gray was intoxicated by alcohol.

Finally, the State argues that Garcia’s notice holding should be overruled. We have already concluded that the charge in this case was valid. Reaching out to address the validity of Garcia’s notice holding would be dicta. And we have rejected this argument before.⁵⁰ We decline to consider it today.

V. JUDGMENT

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ., concurred in the result. COCHRAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MEYERS, J., joined.

2 . 899 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (plurality op.).

3 . Gray v. State, No. 01-02-00602-CR, 2003 WL 21357335 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st], delivered June 12, 2003) (not designated for publication).

4 . Id., slip op. at 4 (citing Sutton, 899 S.W.2d at 685).

5 . Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.14 (Vernon Supp.2004).

6 . Jackson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Rider v. State, 567 S.W.2d 192, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).

7 . Ex parte Chandler, 719 S.W.2d 602, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

8 . Perez v. State, 537 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).

9 . 665 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

10 . Id. at 489.

11 . Id.

12 . Id.

13 . Id. at 490.

14 . Acts 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 303, p. 1574, § 3; see also Forte v. State, 686 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1985), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

15 . See former Art. 6701 /-1(a)(2)(A). The statute was amended again in 1993 to add “or any other substance.” Act of June 19, 1993, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3699. That is how today's version of the statute, Tex. Pen.Code § 49.01(2)(A), reads.

16 . 747 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).

17 . Garcia v. State, 720 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1986), aff'd, 747 S.W.2d at 381.

18 . 747 S.W.2d at 381.

19 . Id.

20 . Id.

21 . 899 S.W.2d 682.

22 . Id. at 683-84.

23 . Id. at 684.

24 . Id.

25 . Id. at 685.

26 . Id.

27 . Id.

28 . Id.

29 . Id. at 685 (Maloney, J., dissenting).

30 . Id. at 688.

31 . 18 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

32 . Id. at 229.

33 . Id. at 230.

34 . Id. at 232.

35 . Id.

36 .Id. at 231.

37 . Id. at 232.

38 . See Jackson, 633 S.W.2d at 899; Rider, 567 S.W.2d at 195.

39 . See Tex. Pen.Code § 49.01(2)(A).

40 . Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155, 159 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).

41 . Tex. Pen.Code § 1.07(a)(22).

42 . Solis v. State, 787 S.W.2d 388, 390 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), overruled on other grounds, State v. Carter, 810 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

43 . See Tex. Pen.Code § 1.07(a)(22).

44 . 784 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).

45 . Id. at 371; see also Flowers v. State, 815 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

46 . 899 S.W.2d at 685.

47 . See Carter, 810 S.W.2d at 200.

48 .18 S.W.3d at 232.

49 . Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 571 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

50 . Saathoff v. State, 891 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Carter, 810 S.W.2d at 199-200.