## Facts

- Kody William Farmer, who had long treated chronic back pain with medications, was newly prescribed Ambien for insomnia; his other medications included Ultram and Soma.
- Both Ambien and Soma were controlled substances with drowsiness warnings.
- Farmer’s wife placed Ultram and Ambien on a microwave and separated the pills so he would take Ambien at night, consistent with medical advice to take it immediately before bed.
- Later that morning, Farmer drove and was involved in a series of incidents that led officers to suspect intoxication; a blood test showed Ambien in his system.
- Farmer said he did not remember taking his medication, but after seeing video evidence he acknowledged he lacked normal mental or physical faculties.
- At trial, Farmer testified he thought he took Ultram and Soma, and that he did not intentionally or voluntarily take Ambien.
- Farmer requested a jury instruction on voluntariness under Texas Penal Code § 6.01(a), arguing his ingestion of Ambien was not voluntary because he believed he was taking Soma.
- The trial court refused the instruction; the court of appeals reversed; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Farmer mistakenly ingested Ambien, believing it was Soma, entitled him to a jury instruction on the Penal Code § 6.01(a) requirement that an offense include a voluntary act.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
- The court held Farmer was not entitled to a voluntariness instruction because the evidence showed he consciously ingested medication and there was no evidence his bodily movements were uncontrolled.
- The court concluded that a mistake about the identity of the pill does not make the act of swallowing it involuntary under § 6.01(a).

## Legal Principles

- Texas Penal Code § 6.01(a) requires a voluntary act (or omission/possession) as part of criminal conduct; “voluntariness” concerns whether the defendant’s bodily movement was the product of his will.
- A conscious, willed act (such as picking up and swallowing a pill) satisfies § 6.01(a) absent evidence of automatism or lack of control (e.g., unconsciousness, seizure, sleepwalking).
- A factual mistake about what substance was ingested does not negate the voluntariness of the physical act of ingestion for § 6.01(a) purposes.
- DWI is treated as lacking a culpable mental state requirement regarding intoxication; arguments framed as lack of intent generally do not convert a conscious act into non-voluntary conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that Farmer’s conscious ingestion of medication was a voluntary act under § 6.01(a) even if he mistakenly took Ambien instead of Soma, so the trial court properly refused a voluntariness jury instruction and the DWI conviction stood.


Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)