Case Summaries

Each week, TDCAA staff members summarize the most important cases from Texas and federal criminal courts and provide insightful commentary on how those cases could impact the criminal justice system as well as a link to the opinions. Find a library of previous Weekly Case Summaries here.

Summaries

February 13, 2026

Texas Court of Appeals

Bacon v. State

No. 14-23-00939-CR                   2/10/26

Issue:

Did the trial court incorrectly allow including the full statutory definition of “intoxicated” (alleging all possible intoxicants) in the jury charge at the defendant’s DWI trial?

Holding:

Yes. Including the full statutory definition of “intoxicated” when the evidence supported only intoxication by alcohol requires reversal of the defendant’s conviction “because the charge permitted conviction on a theory for which the record contained no supporting evidence, effectively allowing the jury to infer intoxication based on an untested substance.” Field sobriety tests resulted in the arresting officer’s conclusion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated due to alcohol consumption. After arresting the defendant, the officer’s inventory turned up an open alcoholic beverage in the vehicle and a grinder in a backpack. The officer acknowledged the substance in the grinder was not tested to determine its THC content but said he believed it to be synthetic marijuana. While the Court concluded that the body camera footage showing the possible synthetic marijuana was admissible as same-transaction contextual evidence, including intoxication by “a controlled substance, a drug, or a dangerous drug” in the jury charge was reversible error. Read opinion.

Commentary:

The court felt constrained to find that it was error to give the full definition of “intoxicated” based upon precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals. As such, this case underscores the need to avoid the full definition of an element in the jury charge if not all parts of the definition apply to a case. That is particularly important in intoxication-related offenses because of the broad definition of “intoxicated” that has been adopted by the Legislature. Still, it seems rather harsh to reverse the defendant’s conviction based upon a definition to which defense counsel did not object. But that is the current state of jurisprudence on jury charges in criminal cases. Prosecutors of driving while intoxicated cases should read and remain aware of this decision and the cases upon which it relies.

TDCAA is pleased to offer these unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The commentaries expressed in these case summaries are not official statements by TDCAA and do not represent the opinions of TDCAA, its staff, or any member of the association. Please email comments, problems, or questions to Joe Hooker.