## Facts

- Mark Ken Tafel, a Hamilton County Commissioner and concealed-handgun license holder, was accused of carrying handguns at Hamilton County Commissioners Court meetings.
- After receiving complaints, the sheriff discussed the issue with Tafel.
- In a written statement to the sheriff dated February 23, 2011, Tafel admitted he carried at the meetings and acknowledged he knew doing so violated the law.
- On April 14, 2011, the county judge gave Tafel a letter purporting to authorize him to carry at commissioners-court meetings; the letter was not filed in any court.
- On November 14, 2011, at a commissioners-court meeting, the sheriff observed what he believed was a weapon under Tafel’s jacket, recovered two handguns from him, and arrested him.
- The State prosecuted Tafel in two cases for unlawful carrying by a license holder at a governmental meeting under Texas Penal Code § 46.035(c); § 46.035(i) (cross-referencing § 30.06) was implicated regarding “effective notice.”
- At trial, Tafel argued (1) he lacked effective notice under §§ 46.035(i) and 30.06 and (2) he acted under a mistake of law based largely on the county judge’s letter and interactions with local officials.
- The jury convicted Tafel on both counts; the trial court imposed six months’ community supervision and a $500 fine in each case.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas Penal Code § 46.035(i) (stating § 46.035(c) “does not apply” absent effective notice under § 30.06) is an element, an exception, or a defense, and how that classification affects the burden of proof.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to reject beyond a reasonable doubt Tafel’s lack-of-effective-notice defense and related mistake-of-law theory.

## Decision

- The court held § 46.035(i) is a defense (not an element or an exception) under the Texas Penal Code’s labeling rules.
- The court applied the sufficiency standard requiring review of evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, including whether a rational factfinder could find against the defendant on the defensive issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court concluded the evidence permitted a rational jury to find Tafel received effective notice as contemplated by § 30.06 and to reject any claimed mistake-of-law theory.
- The court affirmed both convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory clause that is not labeled as an “exception” in the manner required by Texas Penal Code § 2.02 is treated as a “defense” under § 2.03.
- When a defendant raises a statutory defense, the State must still prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the factfinder must be able to reject the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Effective notice” under Texas Penal Code § 30.06 may be provided by oral or written communication meeting statutory requirements; the sufficiency question centers on whether the actor was given effective notice, as found by the factfinder on the record evidence.
- A local official’s purported authorization cannot override a state criminal statute; evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge of illegality supports rejection of mistake-of-law claims.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Tafel’s convictions for carrying handguns at a governmental meeting, holding that the “no effective notice” provision in § 46.035(i) operates as a defense and that the evidence—particularly Tafel’s prior written acknowledgment of illegality and other communications—was sufficient for a rational jury to reject the defense and any claimed mistake of law beyond a reasonable doubt.


Tafel v. State, No. 10-14-00019-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9703 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 7, 2016)