September 2015

Texans love their guns and many folks in Texas are excited about the new “Open Carry” laws that were passed this year. Some people imagine a wild west where handguns are worn on the hips of everyone in town. Other are terrified that gun-related incidents will increase. Well, the new open carry laws do not come without their rules.

With the passage of House Bill 910, beginning January 1, 2016, Texans in possession of a concealed carry license (CHL) will be allowed to openly carry a holstered handgun. While “open carry” sounds simple enough, there is much more to it. This article explains some of the rules that Texans need to know if they plan to openly carry a handgun in 2016.

Who is eligible to openly carry a handgun?

Only CHL holders may open carry. Subchapter H of Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code sets out the basic requirements for a person to be eligible to apply for a handgun license and openly carry a firearm.

To open carry in Texas, a person MUST:

1) Be a legal resident of the State of Texas for the preceding six months before applying for his or her handgun license;
2) Be at least 21 years of age*;
3) Have never been convicted of a felony;
4) Not be charged with the commission of:
• Class A or B Misdemeanor or equivalent offense
• the offense of Disorderly Conduct or equivalent; or
• a felony offense;
5) Not be a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or B Misdemeanor or equivalent offense;
6) Not be a chemically dependent person;
7) Not be incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;
8) Have not, in the prior five years before applying, been convicted of a Class A or B Misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of the offense of Disorderly Conduct or equivalent offense;
9) Be fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun;
10) Have not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support payments or collected by the attorney general;
11) Have not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of taxes or other money collected by the State;
12) Not be currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other than a restraining order solely affecting property interests;
13) Have not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; or
14) Have not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174. (Perjury).

*The age restriction is lowered down to 18 for honorably discharged military veterans who meet all other qualifications.

What types of firearms can be openly carried in Texas?

Currently, under Texas Penal Code Section 46.03, a person cannot carry, either openly or by concealment, a handgun unless that person is on the person’s own premise or inside of a motor vehicle that is owned or under the person’s control (the weapon must still be concealed if carried in a vehicle under 46.03 (a-1)). There is no language in Texas Penal Code 46.03 regarding firearms other than handguns. Therefore, there are no laws prohibiting openly carrying rifles and shotguns (subject to the “where” restrictions to be addressed below). The exception to Texas Penal Code 46.03 is that the provision doesn’t apply to those in possession of a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code.

In addition to carrying a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, the new House Bill 910 now grants the opportunity for Texans in possession of a concealed carry to openly carry a holstered “handgun.” A “handgun” is defined by Texas Penal Code 46.01 (5) as “any firearm that is designed, made or adapted to be fired by one hand.” Shotguns can be openly carried now in addition to holstered handguns as long as a person is in possession of a license granted under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code.

How can handguns be openly carried?

Use a holster. Under Texas Penal Code 46.15(b) (6), a person carrying a valid CHL may carry a handgun either in a concealed manner or in a shoulder or belt holster. Under these new provisions, if the handgun is carried any other way, a person would be unlawfully carrying the handgun.

Where can handguns be openly carried?

In general, even if a person possesses a CHL, Texas Penal Code 46.03 strictly prohibits the carrying of a handgun or firearm from the following places:
1) School or educational institutions;
2) An election site during regular or early voting;
3) Government or court offices;
4) At a racetrack;
5) Airports (in the restricted section); or
6) Within 1,000 feet of premises of an execution site on the day of an execution.

In addition to the locations listed above, Texas Penal Code 30.06 prohibits individuals, and creates a criminal offense of trespass, for those who hold a license to carry a handgun when notified that their presence on the property with a handgun is expressly forbidden. To provide notice, a property owner must display written notice on the property that specifically complies with the notice requirements of Texas Penal Code 30.06.

With the new Open Carry law, those that wish to prohibit others from carrying a handgun on their premises, must also post a notice in accordance with section 30.07 of the Texas Penal Code.  This notice is in addition to the 30.06 sign.

Conclusion

The term “open carry” has been loosely thrown around as new legislation has been debated and ultimately passed regarding openly carrying handguns. It is important to remember that “open carry” isn’t a free-for-all regarding handguns. “Open Carry” is still highly regulated and a person considering openly carrying a handgun should be familiar with all of these new laws and regulations, so that they do not end up needing our services.

Luke Williams is a criminal defense attorney with Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC in Fort Worth, Texas.

Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC
500 Main Street, Suite 610
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
www.bhwlawfirm.com

Causation Difficult to Prove In DWI Intoxication Manslaughter Case | Fort Worth DWI Attorneys

One of the key issues in any criminal case is causation. In order to be found guilty of a crime, a defendant’s actions must be found to have been the cause of the criminal act. While causation may seem like a simple thing to prove, causation may depend as much on the actions of the victim as on the actions of the defendant.

Saenz v. State (14th Court of Appeals, August 2015)

FACTS: Monika Saenz was driving her truck around 3:00 a.m. when she struck Jose Torres, Jr., killing him. Blood drawn over an hour after the accident yielded a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .172 for Saenz. The autopsy of Torres determined that his BAC was also .172 at the time of the accident and that he had used marijuana and cocaine prior to his death.

Saenz was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and accident involving injury or death. There was no question as to whether Saenz’s truck hit Torres. Saenz’s only defense was concurrent causation: If Torres’ conduct was clearly sufficient to produce the accident that resulted in his death, and Saenz’s conduct was clearly insufficient to produce that result, then Saenz should be acquitted under the theory of concurrent causation.

Saenz pointed to many features of Torres’ conduct that were sufficient to cause the accident. He was walking in the road in dark clothes while intoxicated in the middle of the night; there was no evidence that Saenz’s car ever left the roadway; Torres was walking on the wrong side of the road; and Saenz was not speeding at the time of the accident. Saenz’s position was that her driving while intoxicated was insufficient to cause Torres’ death because even a sober driver would have struck and killed Torres given his conduct.

As part of her concurrent causation defense, Saenz attempted to admit evidence of Torres’ .172 BAC. However, the medical examiner refused to state his opinion that Torres’ .172 BAC would have affected his normal use of physical or mental faculties. As a result, the trial court did not allow admission of the evidence regarding Torres’ BAC.

On appeal, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals questioned why the medical examiner would refuse to concede that a BAC of more than twice the legal limit for driving may have affected Torres’ use of his mental or physical faculties. Furthermore, the Court noted that the standard for public intoxication is that an individual is intoxicated to the degree that he may endanger himself or others. According to the Court, the evidence of Torres’ .172 BAC may have led the jury to conclude that Torres was a danger to himself while walking in the middle of the road in the dark. Further, the Court held, the BAC evidence might have provided a possible explanation to the jury for why Torres failed to move from the roadway when the vehicle appeared.

After finding that the evidence of the victim’s BAC should have been admitted, the Court addressed the question of whether the failure to admit had harmed Saenz’s case. According to the Court, Torres’ BAC evidence was essential Saenz’s defense, and excluding the evidence denied Saenz the opportunity to properly present her concurrent causation defense. Because the Court determined that exclusion of evidence of the victim’s BAC was error that may have contributed to the conviction or punishment, the Court reversed the conviction for intoxication manslaughter and remanded the case for a new trial.

This case illustrates the complexity of the current causation defense, which is used in cases other than criminal cases, particularly property insurance cases. A Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney will be familiar with the concurrent causation defense and may be able to obtain an acquittal for his or her client by showing that the criminal act would have occurred even if the defendant had done nothing wrong because the victim’s conduct would have caused it.

Rejecting the "Science" of Retrograde Extrapolation in Texas DWI Cases

Most people are familiar with the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level for DWI: 0.08.  Most people, however, are not familiar with "retrograde extrapolation" and the role it plays in determining BAC. A Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney will understand the importance of retrograde extrapolation in a DWI case as evidenced by a recent decision from the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals.

VELIZ v. STATE (14th Court of Appeals, Houston, 2015)

FACTS: Houston Police Officer Joel Quezada arrested Luis Veliz shortly after midnight. Veliz admitted to having two beers to drink. After Officer Quezada obtained a search warrant, Veliz's blood was drawn at 3:32 a.m. Veliz's BAC was .081.

At Veliz's trial, a criminalist from the police crime laboratory testified that, based on the .081 BAC at 3:32 a.m., Veliz's BAC at the time of the stop would have been between 0.095 and 0.124. The jury found Veliz guilty of DWI.

On appeal, Veliz argued the criminalist's testimony regarding his BAC was not admissible. This is where retrograde extrapolation became important.

The issue in a DWI case is the BAC at the time the defendant was driving. The blood sample is often obtained hours after the arrest. The process for estimating a BAC at the time of arrest based on a blood sample drawn later is known as retrograde extrapolation: a BAC at one point in time (3:32 a.m. for Veliz) is used to estimate the BAC at a time in the past (12:05 a.m. for Veliz).

Mata Factors Must Be Proven In Order to Apply Retrograde Extrapolation in Texas DWI Cases

Texas case law allows retrograde extrapolation testimony if the expert witness understands how to apply and how to clearly explain the process. In assessing such testimony, courts consider the time between the offense and the blood test, how many tests are administered and at what intervals, and any characteristics of the individual that were considered, including weight, gender, drinking pattern, tolerance for alcohol, amount of alcohol consumed, type of alcohol consumed, time of the last drink and what food was consumed. These are known as the Mata factors, based on the case in which they were first applied.

The Mata factors are important because different individuals' bodies absorb and eliminate alcohol at different rates. And calculating a BAC retroactively requires knowing whether the individual was in the absorption phase (increasing BAC) or in the elimination phase (declining BAC). While not every factor must be known, Texas case law requires that if only one test is performed some time after the alleged offense, retrograde extrapolation is reliable only if many of the factors are considered.

The Court found the criminalist did not know many of Veliz's relevant characteristics--his drinking pattern, the time of his first or last drink, or whether he had eaten recently. The criminalist testified she did not know the Mata factors for retrograde extrapolation. She also testified--incorrectly--that all she needed to perform a retrograde extrapolation was the time of the stop and the time of the blood draw. Because the criminalist did not understand and could not explain the subtleties of retrograde extrapolation, the court reversed the verdict and remanded for a new trial.

Some people believe refusing a blood test when arrested for DWI is a good strategy because any delay will result in a lower (and unreliable) BAC. However, a Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney will advise that a BAC based on blood drawn several hours after the arrest can be used to calculate a BAC at the time of arrest that will be admissible in court if the retrograde extrapolation appropriately considers some or all of the Mata factors.

On the other hand, if an individual is on trial for DWI, his or her Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney should carefully question any BAC evidence, particularly if it is based on a blood draw that occurred some time after the arrest. Retrograde extrapolation is not an exact science, and a jury will be allowed to hear testimony only if the extrapolation is appropriately performed and explained.

Contact the Experienced Fort Worth DWI Attorneys at Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC. (817) 993-9249

Our Tarrant County DWI attorneys are experienced in the science behind DWI and retrograde extrapolation for determining BAC. If you have been arrested for DWI, please contact us today for a FREE consultation of your case. Call (817) 993-9249 and set up an office consultation in Fort Worth, Keller, or Grapevine.

Obscure Texas Laws | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys

No, I'm not talking about a Good Samaritan Law, but Texas does have some obscure laws on the books that you might not suspect.  We are hoping to bring some of them to your attention.  For the first obscure Texas law, we look to one of the most successful television shows in history.

For all of the Seinfeld fans out there, you probably remember the episode where Kramer tries to entice Jerry to have cable illegally installed by two Russians.  Well, Jerry's actions would be a Class C misdemeanor Theft offense here in Texas punishable by a fine up to $500.

Section 31.12 - Theft of or Tampering With Multichannel Video or Information

Under this law:

[a] person commits an offense if, without the authorization of the multichannel video or information services provider, the person intentionally or knowingly makes or maintains a connection, whether physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to a television set, videotape recorder, or other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information system.

Based on his actions (or inability to stop Kramer), Jerry could be arrested and issued a Class C criminal citation.  Like all penal statutes, there is much more to it than that.  If you're curious about whether you may have violated this one in the past (long before the statute of limitations ran out, of course), see the full text of the Texas Theft Statute and look for Section 31.12.

Contact Fort Worth Theft Attorneys

If you or a loved one are charged with any theft offense in Texas, don't call Jacky Chiles.  Contact the experienced (and non-fictional) criminal defense attorneys at Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC by calling (817) 993-9249.

Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) holds that Aggravated Assault by Threat does not require personal presence of the victim

In Hernandez v. State (Tex. App.--Fort Worth August 6, 2015), the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, Texas looked that the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Assault by Threat when appellant brandished a gun to a crowd while looking for the victim.

FACTS: The appellant, Daniel Hernandez, got into an argument with the victim and exchanged hostile words in the parking lot outside a food stand owned by the victim. Appellant told the victim "you're going down" before he drove left the area in his vehicle. The appellant ultimately returned to the parking lot armed with a gun.

The victim, who had learned that appellant was back and was armed, hid inside of a building behind the food stand. The victim watched from the window as the defendant waved the gun to the crowd that had gathered in the parking lot. The defendant specifically encountered one individual in the crowd, a friend of the victim, and pointed the gun at him. The defendant then left. Approximately ten minutes later, someone shot up the victim's pickup truck, which was parked outside a nearby home.

Hernandez was convicted by a jury in the 367th District Court in Denton County and was sentenced to 63 years confinement. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict when the alleged victim was not present during the aggravated assault.

A majority of the 2nd Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault (by threat) with a deadly weapon. The Court concluded that the evidence showed that "Appellant was hunting [the victim] with a gun and was verbally threatening to take him down" near the food stand, "that is, in the location Appellant expected to find him." The Court reasoned that "it did not matter that the defendant could not find the victim at the location; his actions still rendered him liable for an assault by threat with a firearm. Appellant's inability to find [the victim] in the crowd did not change Appellant's conduct."

Justice Dauphinot dissented. She reasoned that there was no evidence that the defendant "knew that Complainant was watching him" from the building. In her view, the evidence must have established that the defendant specifically knew the victim was present in order to find he intentionally or knowingly placed the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury.

Contact our Fort Worth Aggravated Assault Defense Attorneys at (817) 993-9249

The criminal defense lawyers at Barnett Howard & Williams handle aggravated assault cases including cases involving deadly weapons in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, and Denton County. Contact us today for a free consultation of your criminal case.