State v. Barbernell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that definitions of “intoxicated” were evidentiary and did not need to be alleged where the DWI statute focused not on the act of becoming intoxicated, but on the act of the defendant while intoxicated
• holding that State did not have to allege method of intoxication, overruling Carter v. State, 810 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and by implication Saathoff v. State, 891 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994
• concluding that, for purposes of the offense of driving while intoxicated, the definition of “intoxicated” on which the State intended to rely need not be alleged to provide adequate notice because definitions are “purely evidentiary matters.”
• concluding that, for purposes of the offense of driving while intoxicated, the definition of “intoxicated” on which the State intended to rely need not be alleged to provide adequate notice because definitions are “purely evidentiary matters.”
• noting that the definitions “set forth alternative means by which the State may prove intoxication, rather than alternative means of committing the offense”
• holding charging instrument must allege specific manner or means if statute establishing criminal offense describes act or omission as element and definitions provide alternative manner or means for offense to be committed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).