3 ms·

Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? You can charge wh

Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? You can charge whatever you like, a prosecutor/grand jury can "indict a ham sandwich." Texas still has a sodomy law on the books too (although enforcing it has been stricken by supreme court).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
otterley 5y ago
Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? Texas Penal Code 6.03(c): "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." And what does the now-void sodomy law have to do with anything? You're also mixing up indictment with conviction. At any rate, you don't have to have a fact pattern that precisely matches a previously-recorded case to think "gee, maybe this is a bad idea and puts me at risk of violating some law." Most cases involve fact patterns that are at least somewhat different from previous case law. A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'm gonna ask the question again, since you completely dodged it: Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? I know what the difference is between indictment and conviction, stop trying to act like this holier than thou. The 'fact pattern' of drunk driving on private property isn't a rare pattern, it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a conviction under that statute if it has been succesful. >Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? No shit. I got it from my example, where the driver didn't hit anyone. That's what we were both talking about, a drunk driver on their own private property behind a fence. When did I ever say they hit someone? In my example they didn't, which is why I asked for a case where they didn't. The sodomy law is an example of how overzealous prosecutors can prosecute "a ham sandwich" on whatever they want but it means jack in terms of whether they can actually convict someone, even if the exact letter of the law suggests they can. >A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases. Sadly many prosecutors care more about convictions (or just dragging someone through the system, conviction or not) than any of those. And some care more about convictions than even justice, to the point they will imprison people for victimless crimes. A bad prosecutor is one of the most dangerous and despised members of society.
  - otterley 5y ago
    The fact is that nobody knows right now with certainty whether driving drunk on private property would result in a reckless endangerment conviction. I cited an alternate legal theory that a prosecutor could use. If there’s no case law that is directly on point, we have to go with what the statute says and other case law about the statute in other cases, and make our best guess based on what a prosecutor might argue and how a judge might find. That’s what lawyers do. I’m not being “holier than thou;” I’m using my formal legal training to contribute to the conversation and dispel myths about the law. I don’t want anyone taking unnecessary risks, influenced by false suggestions or claims made here, and ending up in potentially serious trouble as a result. Many criminal cases involve multiple counts of violations of different criminal laws for the same conduct in order to improve the chances of a conviction on at least one of them. That’s just par for the course, and is the basis for the phrase “throw the book at them.” As for the sodomy law, before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. See, e.g., https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm The fact that it has been voided since is something every prosecutor knows, and so they won’t even try to indict anyone for it. Getting the law off the books is a formality at this point.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >As for the sodomy law, you are still wrong. Before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. Except I never said that no one had ever been convicted. I'm saying even though the law still is on paper, it doesn't mean someone can be successfully convicted of performing a 'fact pattern' that looks like it might violate the letter of the law. For someone formally trained in law you have a shockingly poor attention to detail or even accurately recalling facts.
      - otterley 5y ago
        You need to stop making personal attacks or you risk being removed from HN.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

otterley 5y ago

Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? Texas Penal Code 6.03(c): "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." And what does the now-void sodomy law have to do with anything? You're also mixing up indictment with conviction. At any rate, you don't have to have a fact pattern that precisely matches a previously-recorded case to think "gee, maybe this is a bad idea and puts me at risk of violating some law." Most cases involve fact patterns that are at least somewhat different from previous case law. A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases.

notch656a 5y ago
I'm gonna ask the question again, since you completely dodged it: Can you cite a case where someone has been convicted under 22.05(a) for driving drunk on private property without actually having hit anyone? I know what the difference is between indictment and conviction, stop trying to act like this holier than thou. The 'fact pattern' of drunk driving on private property isn't a rare pattern, it shouldn't be difficult to dig up a conviction under that statute if it has been succesful. >Reckless endangerment does not require you actually hit anyone. Where did you get that from? No shit. I got it from my example, where the driver didn't hit anyone. That's what we were both talking about, a drunk driver on their own private property behind a fence. When did I ever say they hit someone? In my example they didn't, which is why I asked for a case where they didn't. The sodomy law is an example of how overzealous prosecutors can prosecute "a ham sandwich" on whatever they want but it means jack in terms of whether they can actually convict someone, even if the exact letter of the law suggests they can. >A prosecutor's job is to make their case based on the facts, the law, and the ability to draw parallels from other cases. Sadly many prosecutors care more about convictions (or just dragging someone through the system, conviction or not) than any of those. And some care more about convictions than even justice, to the point they will imprison people for victimless crimes. A bad prosecutor is one of the most dangerous and despised members of society.
- otterley 5y ago
  The fact is that nobody knows right now with certainty whether driving drunk on private property would result in a reckless endangerment conviction. I cited an alternate legal theory that a prosecutor could use. If there’s no case law that is directly on point, we have to go with what the statute says and other case law about the statute in other cases, and make our best guess based on what a prosecutor might argue and how a judge might find. That’s what lawyers do. I’m not being “holier than thou;” I’m using my formal legal training to contribute to the conversation and dispel myths about the law. I don’t want anyone taking unnecessary risks, influenced by false suggestions or claims made here, and ending up in potentially serious trouble as a result. Many criminal cases involve multiple counts of violations of different criminal laws for the same conduct in order to improve the chances of a conviction on at least one of them. That’s just par for the course, and is the basis for the phrase “throw the book at them.” As for the sodomy law, before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. See, e.g., https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/texas.htm The fact that it has been voided since is something every prosecutor knows, and so they won’t even try to indict anyone for it. Getting the law off the books is a formality at this point.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >As for the sodomy law, you are still wrong. Before it was ruled unconstitutional (and therefore void), it was enforceable and people were convicted of it. Except I never said that no one had ever been convicted. I'm saying even though the law still is on paper, it doesn't mean someone can be successfully convicted of performing a 'fact pattern' that looks like it might violate the letter of the law. For someone formally trained in law you have a shockingly poor attention to detail or even accurately recalling facts.
    - otterley 5y ago
      You need to stop making personal attacks or you risk being removed from HN.