Billingslea v. State
780 S.W.2d 271 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Texas, criminal liability for an omission (a failure to act) can only be imposed when a specific statute creates a legal duty to act. A duty arising from a familial relationship or moral obligation is insufficient to support a criminal conviction for an omission.
Facts:
- The defendant, Billingslea, lived with his 94-year-old mother, Hazel Billingslea, in her home.
- In March 1984, Hazel Billingslea became bedridden due to the frailties of old age.
- Billingslea actively prevented his niece, Virginia, from visiting or speaking with Hazel Billingslea, on one occasion threatening to kill her if she did not stay away.
- After being unable to contact her grandmother, Virginia's mother (Billingslea's sister) requested a welfare check from the Social Security Office.
- On April 20, 1984, authorities entered the home and found Hazel Billingslea in an upstairs bedroom amidst a strong odor of rotting flesh, moaning for help.
- A physical examination at the hospital revealed Hazel Billingslea was suffering from severe neglect, including large, open bedsores (some down to the bone), second-degree burns from urine, maggot infestation in her wounds, and severe muscle loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Billingslea was charged in a Texas trial court with injury to an elderly individual.
- A jury found Billingslea guilty and assessed his punishment at 99 years in prison.
- Billingslea, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered an acquittal.
- The State of Texas, as petitioner, was granted a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person have a legally enforceable duty to provide care for an elderly parent, creating criminal liability for an omission under Texas Penal Code § 22.04, in the absence of a specific statute imposing such a duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Duncan, J.
No. A person cannot be held criminally liable for an omission to provide care for an elderly parent unless a statute specifically imposes that duty. Under Texas Penal Code § 6.01(c), a person commits an offense by omission only if a statute provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides a duty to perform the act. The court reasoned that Texas criminal law strictly prohibits the imposition of criminal liability based on common law duties, contractual duties, or duties arising from a special relationship. Unlike child neglect cases, where the Texas Family Code explicitly imposes a statutory duty of care on parents, no similar statute existed at the time of the offense that required an adult child to care for an elderly parent. Although Billingslea may have had a moral duty, moral imperatives are not legal duties under Texas law. Therefore, because no statute assigned Billingslea a duty to act, the indictment charging him for an omission was fundamentally defective and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Analysis:
This decision starkly illustrates the principle that in Texas, all criminal liability must have a direct statutory basis, particularly for offenses based on an omission to act. It affirms that Texas courts will not infer criminal duties from relationships or moral codes, maintaining a strict separation from common law principles used in other jurisdictions. The case exposed a significant loophole in the law regarding elder abuse by omission, which directly prompted the Texas Legislature to amend Penal Code § 22.04. The amendment explicitly created a legal duty for individuals who have voluntarily assumed the care, custody, or control of an elderly individual, thereby closing the gap highlighted by this ruling.
Unlock the full brief for Billingslea v. State