Intoxicated Manslaughter Jury Instructions

The defendant, stands charged by indictment with the offense of intoxication manslaughter, alleged to have been committed in Tarrant County, Texas, on or about the 15th day of November, 2015. To this charge, the defendant has pleaded not guilty. Our law provides that a person commits the offense of intoxication manslaughter if the person operates a motor vehicle in a public place and is intoxicated, and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.

Our law provides that a person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

“Motor vehicle” means a device in, on, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

“Public place” means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

“Intoxicated” means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, or having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

“Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

A “deadly weapon” means anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

“Actor” means a person whose criminal responsibility is in issue in a criminal action. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 15th day of November, 2015, in Tarrant County, Texas, Margarito Perez Carmona, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and did by reason of such intoxication cause the death of another, Decedent, through accident or mistake, namely: by driving said motor vehicle into or against another vehicle occupied by Decedent, – l – then you will find the defendant guilty of intoxication manslaughter as charged in the indictment. Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then you will acquit the defendant of intoxication manslaughter and say by your verdict “not guilty.” A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor was clearly insufficient to produce the result.

Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 15th day of November, 2015, in Tarrant County, Texas, Accused, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and did by reason of such intoxication cause the death of another, Decedent, through accident or mistake, namely: by driving said motor vehicle into or against another vehicle occupied by Decedent; and the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient to produce the result; then you will find the defendant guilty of intoxication manslaughter as charged in the indictment,

However, if you find that the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, operating alone or concurrently with another cause, but you do find that the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then you will acquit the defendant of intoxication manslaughter and say by your verdict “not guilty,” and next consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 15th day of November, 2015, in Tarrant County, Texas, Margarito Perez Carmona, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, then you will find the defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated.

Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then you will acquit the defendant of the lesser included offense of driving while intoxicated and say by your verdict “not guilty.”

Our law provides that a defendant may testify in his own behalf if he elects to do so. This, however, is a privilege accorded a defendant, and in the event he elects not to testify, that fact cannot be taken as a circumstance against him. In this case, the defendant has elected not to testify, and you are instructed that you cannot and must not refer or allude to that fact throughout your deliberations or take it into consideration for any purpose whatsoever as a circumstance against the defendant.

All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.

The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.

The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty, and it must do so by proving each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant.

It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt. 

In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt after considering all the evidence before you, and these instructions, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict, “not guilty.”

You are instructed that the indictment in this case is no evidence whatsoever of the guilt of the defendant. It is a mere pleading necessary in order to bring this case into court for trial, and you will consider it for no purpose.

You are the exclusive judges of the facts proved, of the credibility of the witnesses, and of the weight to be given their testimony, but you are bound to receive the law from the Court, which is herein given you, and be governed thereby.

After you retire to the jury room, you will select one of your members as your presiding juror. It is his or her duty to preside at your deliberations, vote with you, and when you have unanimously agreed upon a verdict, to certify to your verdict by using the appropriate form attached and signing the same as presiding juror.

You are instructed that your verdict must be by a unanimous vote of all members of the jury. In deliberating on this case, you shall consider the charge as a whole and you must not refer to or discuss any matters not in evidence before you.

If the jury wishes to communicate with the Court, such communication must be in writing and signed by the presiding juror and handed to the bailiff.

SPECIAL ISSUE “Deadly Weapon” means anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Do you find it “true” beyond a reasonable doubt that a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, that in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, was used or exhibited during the commission of the felony offense of intoxication manslaughter, and that the defendant, Margarito Perez Carmona, used or exhibited the deadly weapon?