## Facts

- James Fulton drank substantial amounts of beer over a short period, including a large quantity during dinner.
- After leaving dinner, he drove at a high speed on a familiar rural road.
- Fulton became distracted by a deer, failed to negotiate a curve, crossed a double-yellow line, and struck Haile Beasley’s vehicle head-on, killing her.
- Just before the collision, Fulton nearly hit an oncoming vehicle driven by Kristen Woodard; she swerved to avoid impact, while Fulton did not noticeably react.
- Fulton did not attempt to brake before striking Beasley’s vehicle.
- A field sobriety test indicated impairment; the State did not prove Fulton was “legally intoxicated” under the per se BAC threshold and conceded that point, but offered expert testimony that he was impaired.
- Fulton refused to provide a blood or breath sample.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Fulton acted with criminal negligence by causing death—i.e., he ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and his failure to perceive it was a gross deviation from ordinary care.
2. Whether driving while impaired, without proof of legal intoxication, can satisfy the criminal negligence element for criminally negligent homicide under Texas law.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction for criminally negligent homicide.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected any rule requiring proof of legal intoxication; impairment short of per se intoxication may be considered with the surrounding driving conduct to determine gross deviation from ordinary care.

## Legal Principles

- Criminally negligent homicide occurs when a defendant causes death by criminal negligence. Tex. Penal Code § 19.05(a).
- A defendant acts with criminal negligence when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and his failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise under similar circumstances. Tex. Penal Code § 6.03(d).
- Criminal negligence is assessed from the actor’s standpoint at the time of the conduct, and it requires more than ordinary (civil) negligence.
- Proof of impairment, even without proof of per se intoxication, may support criminal negligence when combined with evidence such as excessive speed, lane-crossing into oncoming traffic, failure to react to clear hazards, and failure to brake.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Fulton’s criminally negligent homicide conviction, holding that the jury could rationally find a gross deviation from ordinary care based on substantial alcohol consumption and impairment evidence combined with high-speed, inattentive driving that crossed into oncoming traffic and showed no meaningful reaction before a fatal head-on collision, even without proof of legal intoxication.


Fulton v. State, 576 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019)