## Facts

- Dennis Howard Walker was indicted in Smith County, Texas, for violating Texas Property Code § 12.002(b), a statute restricting the filing or recording of a subdivision plat or replat unless it has been approved “as provided by law” by the appropriate authority and accompanied by required documents (when applicable).
- The indictment alleged that on or about February 24, 2004, Walker recorded the “West Oaks Subdivision Units II and III” plat in the Smith County Clerk’s office without approval by the appropriate authority—identified as the City of Tyler Planning and Zoning authority.
- The statute provides misdemeanor punishment by a fine and/or confinement in county jail for up to 90 days.
- The indictment did not allege any culpable mental state (such as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly).
- Walker moved to quash the indictment, arguing the charging instrument was defective because § 12.002(b) does not plainly dispense with mens rea and Texas Penal Code § 6.02 therefore requires a culpable mental state to be alleged and proved.
- The trial court granted the motion to quash. In explaining its ruling, the court started from the presumption that a culpable mental state is required unless the Legislature clearly created a strict-liability offense, noting that the presumption against strict liability is stronger when confinement is possible; it also noted the lack of prior prosecutions under the statute.
- The State appealed, arguing § 12.002(b) defines a strict-liability offense and the trial court erred by requiring the indictment to plead a culpable mental state.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas Property Code § 12.002(b), which is silent as to mens rea, nevertheless dispenses with a culpable mental state and creates a strict-liability offense.
2. If a culpable mental state is required, whether an indictment under § 12.002(b) is fundamentally defective when it omits that mental element.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s order quashing the indictment.
- Applying Texas Penal Code § 6.02(b), the court held that when an offense definition does not prescribe a culpable mental state, one is still required unless the statute plainly dispenses with any mental element.
- Section 12.002(b) contains no express statement eliminating mens rea, and the court found no clear legislative intent—drawn from the statute’s features—to make the offense strict liability, particularly given that confinement is an authorized punishment.
- Because a culpable mental state is an element of the offense, the charging instrument had to allege one; the omission was a fundamental defect supporting quashal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Penal Code § 6.02(b), a culpable mental state is required for an offense unless the offense definition plainly dispenses with a mental element.
- Texas courts disfavor strict-liability crimes, and the presumption against strict liability is stronger when the offense authorizes confinement.
- To decide whether the Legislature meant to dispense with mens rea, courts look beyond statutory silence and consider features such as statutory language, the regulatory or wrongful character of the conduct, the statute’s subject, legislative history (when available), the seriousness of public harm, the defendant’s ability to learn the relevant facts, the practical difficulty of proving mental state, and how many prosecutions are expected.
- When a culpable mental state is an element of the charged offense, the indictment must allege it; omission of a required element is a fundamental defect that supports quashing the charging instrument.

## Conclusion

State v. Walker held that Texas Property Code § 12.002(b) does not plainly eliminate a mens rea requirement, so Texas Penal Code § 6.02(b) requires a culpable mental state as an element of the offense. Because Walker’s indictment failed to allege any culpable mental state, it was fundamentally defective, and the trial court properly quashed it; the court of appeals affirmed.


State v. Walker, 195 S.W.3d 293 (2006)