## Facts

- William Jackson was charged with driving with a suspended license.
- At Jackson’s arraignment, the court set two future court dates in his case.
- Jackson received notice of both scheduled dates.
- Jackson failed to appear in court on each of the two dates.
- The State charged Jackson with two counts of failure to appear.
- At his failure-to-appear trial, Jackson did not dispute that he had received notice of both court dates.
- Jackson argued he missed the first date because he incorrectly remembered when he was supposed to appear.
- Jackson also argued that after missing the first date, he believed he did not have to attend the second date (and expected he would receive further notice about a new court setting).
- Jackson requested a jury instruction requiring the State to prove that his culpable mental state—his choice not to appear—existed at the same time as the act of not appearing.
- The trial court declined to give Jackson’s requested instruction and instead instructed the jury that it could convict if Jackson’s failure to appear was the “joint operation” of a knowing mental state and the conduct.
- The jury convicted Jackson on both failure-to-appear counts, and Jackson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Jackson’s proposed jury instruction requiring the State to prove that Jackson’s decision not to appear coexisted simultaneously with the act of failing to appear.
2. Whether the court’s instruction requiring a “joint operation” of a knowing mental state and the failure to appear correctly conveyed the concurrence requirement for failure-to-appear offenses.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Jackson’s convictions.
- The court held the jury instructions, read as a whole, properly required the State to prove that Jackson acted “knowingly” and that the knowing mental state and the failure to appear were connected as a joint operation.
- The court concluded that Jackson was not entitled to a more specific concurrence instruction beyond the standard requirement that the prohibited conduct be accompanied by the required culpable mental state.
- The court noted that the instructions still allowed Jackson to argue his theory that mistake or misunderstanding meant he did not knowingly fail to appear.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability generally requires concurrence: the prohibited conduct must occur together with the culpable mental state required by the offense.
- A “joint operation” instruction, paired with an instruction defining the required mens rea (here, “knowingly”), can satisfy the concurrence requirement without a special instruction demanding proof of a separate, moment-by-moment decision at the time of the missed appearance.
- In a failure-to-appear case, the State must prove the defendant knowingly failed to appear after receiving notice, but the jury need not be instructed that the defendant must have consciously reconsidered the obligation and then made an express, contemporaneous choice to ignore it at the exact time of the scheduled proceeding.

## Conclusion

Jackson’s failure-to-appear convictions were affirmed because the trial court’s instructions requiring proof of a knowing mental state and a “joint operation” between that mental state and the nonappearance sufficiently stated the concurrence requirement, and Jackson’s proposed instruction demanded a level of specificity the law did not require.


Jackson v. State, 85 P.3d 1042 (2004)