What does "knowing" mean in Texas criminal law?
This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:
Johnson v. State
COA05 — February 23, 2026
A defendant convicted of possession with intent to deliver challenged his conviction, arguing that the State was required to prove he knew the specific chemical identity of the drugs (fentanyl) rather than just knowing he possessed a controlled substance (which he believed was oxycodone). The Fifth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Health & Safety Code and established precedent regarding culpable mental states, determining that the 'knowing' requirement applies to the illicit nature of the substance generally. The court held that the State must prove a defendant knew they possessed a controlled substance, but does not need to prove they knew its specific chemical name or potency. Additionally, the court ruled that trial courts are not required to define the 'floor' of the burden of proof by including 'clear and convincing' instructions in a criminal jury charge.
Litigation Takeaway
“In high-conflict custody or termination litigation, a parent cannot mitigate a 'knowing' endangerment finding by claiming they were mistaken about a drug's identity; knowledge that a substance is 'controlled' is sufficient to establish the mental state for endangerment regardless of the parent's subjective belief about its specific chemical composition or lethality.”
May v. State
COA01 — February 24, 2026
In May v. State, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after accelerating his vehicle while police officers were partially inside the car attempting an arrest, causing them to be thrown to the ground. The defendant argued he lacked the requisite intent because his primary goal was to flee, not to threaten the officers. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the 'knowing' mental state under the Texas Penal Code, characterizing assault by threat as a 'conduct-oriented' offense. The court held that because the defendant chose to maneuver the vehicle while aware of the officers' immediate physical proximity to the car’s path, a rational juror could infer he acted with the necessary intent, regardless of his ultimate desire to escape.
Litigation Takeaway
“The 'I was just trying to leave' defense is insufficient to defeat a claim of assault or family violence if the actor is aware that their departure puts another person in the 'danger zone' of a vehicle. In family law disputes, evidence that a party accelerated or maneuvered a car while a spouse or child was near the doors or path of travel establishes the 'knowing' mental state required for a Family Violence Protective Order, even if the party’s stated goal was merely to de-escalate by driving away.”