## Facts

- Joseph Louis Tovar, president of the Somerset Independent School District Board of Trustees, participated in arranging and holding special closed board meetings.
- The State indicted Tovar on two counts under the Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.144, for:
  - knowingly participating in a special closed meeting not permitted under the Act; and
  - knowingly calling, aiding in calling, or organizing such a closed meeting.
- At trial, Tovar requested a jury instruction requiring the State to prove he knew the closed meeting was “not permitted” under the Act.
- The trial court refused and instead instructed the jury to convict if it found Tovar knowingly called/organized/participated in a closed meeting that was, in fact, not permitted under Chapter 551.
- The jury convicted Tovar on both counts; the court imposed six months’ jail and a $500 fine on each count, suspended the sentences, and placed him on community supervision.
- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.144 requires proof that the defendant knew the closed meeting was not permitted under the Texas Open Meetings Act, rather than only that the defendant knowingly engaged in the conduct of calling, organizing, or participating in the meeting.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- The court held § 551.144 defines a nature-of-conduct offense.
- The State was not required to prove Tovar knew the meeting was legally impermissible; it was sufficient to prove he knowingly engaged in the proscribed conduct and that the meeting was, in fact, unauthorized.
- The trial court correctly refused Tovar’s requested instruction because it would have added an unexpressed mental-state requirement.

## Legal Principles

- For a nature-of-conduct offense, the culpable mental state applies to the defendant’s conduct (e.g., calling, organizing, or participating), not to awareness that the conduct violates a particular law.
- Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.144 criminalizes knowingly engaging in specified conduct involving a closed meeting that is not authorized by the Open Meetings Act; the statute does not require knowledge that the meeting is “not permitted.”
- Courts will not add a mental-state element to a statute when the legislature did not expressly require awareness of illegality.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tovar’s convictions, concluding that the Texas Open Meetings Act imposes criminal liability when a public official knowingly calls, organizes, or participates in a closed meeting that is in fact unauthorized, without requiring proof that the official knew the meeting violated the Act.


Tovar v. State, 978 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)