TexasCHLforum.com

I know the statutes don't mention specifically any limit for CC but I recall someone pointing out that TX case law had been decided that ANY alcohol while CC would qualify as intoxicated. Ring any bells or am I having a brain fart? Thanks

I believe that the responding LEO can classify a CHL holder as intoxicated for having any amount of alcohol in their system. Bottom line is not to drink any alcohol when your carrying.

texanron wrote:I believe that the responding LEO can classify a CHL holder as intoxicated for having any amount of alcohol in their system. Bottom line is not to drink any alcohol when your carrying.

Good advice and simple enough for anyone to understand. Good job!

If you have to go to court as a result of using deadly force, you had better be able to demonstrate to the jury that you were in full control of your faculties, that you had considered every possible alternative, and that you needed to react as you did in order to preserve your life. Don't confuse .08 with this issue. Blood alcohol is not an all or nothing sort of thing. It is a continuous slope between stone sober and passed out drunk. Alcohol can affect your ability to reason, and a good attorney will show the jury that that single beer you drank two hours before the incident affected your ability to reason through the situation. The solution is to leave the weapon at home if you anticipate consuming.

jecsd1 wrote:I know the statutes don't mention specifically any limit for CC but I recall someone pointing out that TX case law had been decided that ANY alcohol while CC would qualify as intoxicated. Ring any bells or am I having a brain fart? Thanks

You can be deemed as intoxicated if you are suffering any impairment. You may not be, but why risk it?

Same as driving. Why risk it? Also, it's important to remember that the legal definition of intoxicated goes beyond alcohol and includes OTC and prescription medicine. Intoxicated is intoxicated.

The definition of intoxication in the state of Texas is "the loss of the normal use of the faculties due to the introduction of alcohol into the bloodstream". If you want to place your fate in the hands of a jury that has to decide what the normal use of your faculties is, then you are essentially rolling the dice. If you mix in the use of deadly force, the scales are tipped significantly against you. I've been a foreman on a jury in a DUI case. The verdict (guilty) turned on what the person was doing at the time of her arrest. If I'm on the jury in a deadly force case where drinking is involved, your behavior and your actions leading up to the incident will weigh heavily in the outcome.

Perhaps I should've been more clear. I never carry while I drink. I was however recently talking with a buddy about the topic and thought I remembered that it had gone to court before and been decided that any alcohol would find you in violation of that particular statute.

jecsd1 wrote:Perhaps I should've been more clear. I never carry while I drink. I was however recently talking with a buddy about the topic and thought I remembered that it had gone to court before and been decided that any alcohol would find you in violation of that particular statute.

That's a common claim but I haven't seen any proof. If someone fails a field sobriety test, that's one thing, but it's different from "any alcohol" being illegal while driving or carrying. Also, keep in mind that alcohol occurs naturally as a metabolic by-product and even someone who doesn't drink has a non-zero (although very low) BAC, but that doesn't mean they're intoxicated. Finally, intoxication can occur from heart medicine or from any substance that causes impairment, whether you like the Chapter 49 definition or the 46.06 definition.

cbr600 wrote:

jecsd1 wrote:Perhaps I should've been more clear. I never carry while I drink. I was however recently talking with a buddy about the topic and thought I remembered that it had gone to court before and been decided that any alcohol would find you in violation of that particular statute.

That's a common claim but I haven't seen any proof. If someone fails a field sobriety test, that's one thing, but it's different from "any alcohol" being illegal while driving or carrying. Also, keep in mind that alcohol occurs naturally as a metabolic by-product and even someone who doesn't drink has a non-zero (although very low) BAC, but that doesn't mean they're intoxicated. Finally, intoxication can occur from heart medicine or from any substance that causes impairment, whether you like the Chapter 49 definition or the 46.06 definition.

Like cbr600, I find no support in the law for the contention that "any alcohol" would cause you to be guilty of a crime. I haven't heard of any case law supporting this. The statutory definition of intoxicated for driving AND CHL is found in PC 49.01 and there certainly is case law that you might not be intoxicated at below 0.08 BAC. The definition of intoxicated is contained in the law.

ScottDLS wrote:Like cbr600, I find no support in the law for the contention that "any alcohol" would cause you to be guilty of a crime. I haven't heard of any case law supporting this. The statutory definition of intoxicated for driving AND CHL is found in PC 49.01 and there certainly is case law that you might not be intoxicated at below 0.08 BAC. The definition of intoxicated is contained in the law.

I gave you the support earlier. 49.01 (2) (a) defines intoxication as "the loss of the normal use of your faculties..." That leaves the interpretation of whether or not you were intoxicated in the hands of the jury, and their decision will be based upon your behavior, not how much you have consumed. So, any amount of alcohol, combined with "abnormal" behavior (as understood by your jury), could get you convicted.

You can reference DWI case law since it operates on the same definition of intoxication as a CHL will be held to.

baldeagle wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Like cbr600, I find no support in the law for the contention that "any alcohol" would cause you to be guilty of a crime. I haven't heard of any case law supporting this. The statutory definition of intoxicated for driving AND CHL is found in PC 49.01 and there certainly is case law that you might not be intoxicated at below 0.08 BAC. The definition of intoxicated is contained in the law.

I gave you the support earlier. 49.01 (2) (a) defines intoxication as "the loss of the normal use of your faculties..." That leaves the interpretation of whether or not you were intoxicated in the hands of the jury, and their decision will be based upon your behavior, not how much you have consumed. So, any amount of alcohol, combined with "abnormal" behavior (as understood by your jury), could get you convicted.

Well the "loss of normal use of your faculties" is a lot higher standard than "any alcohol" consumption. The trial of fact by a jury is subject to the legal interpretation of the law by the judge. The law is exactly the same for driving as for carrying, and the law does not support a different interpretation based on what you were "doing" (carrying...driving). The abnormal behavior...well actually "loss of the normal use of your faculties" must be estabished as a fact "beyond a reasonable doubt", since it's a criminal matter. I find no support in law or cases that "any alcohol consumption" results in prima facie evidence of intoxication.

gigag04 wrote:You can reference DWI case law since it operates on the same definition of intoxication as a CHL will be held to.

I agree, but that means that "any consumption of alcohol" or "the LEO's interpretaion" of intoxicated is not Prima Facie evidence of intoxication. LEO's gather evidence through field sobriety tests, breathalyzer, observation, etc. These are all legimitate evidence for a criminal case. But, the fact that you were at a bar, had a "drink", etc. isn't an automatic conviction. Tell me how it is..?

I've seen solid cases loose. Nothing is an automatic conviction.

If a case doesn't meet the elements than either CA/judge/jury can let him off.