Boyer v. State
801 S.W.2d 897, 1990 WL 254977, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the law of parties, a defendant may be convicted based on the criminal conduct of another person, even if that other person is immune from prosecution and thus not criminally responsible for the act. The proper legal focus is on whether the conduct itself constituted the commission of an offense, not on the legal culpability of the person who performed the act.
Facts:
- James Brumley, an undercover narcotics investigator, and his confidential informant were sitting in the front seat of a parked car.
- The appellant, Boyer, was sitting in the back seat of the same car.
- Boyer ordered the informant to hand a quantity of amphetamine to Investigator Brumley.
- Following Boyer's order, the informant transferred the amphetamine to Brumley.
- Brumley attempted to give one hundred dollars to Boyer as payment.
- Boyer refused to accept the money and instructed Brumley to give it to the informant, which Brumley then did.
Procedural Posture:
- Boyer was convicted by a jury in the trial court for delivery of amphetamine.
- The trial court sentenced Boyer to twenty-five years in prison.
- Boyer, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient under the law of parties, and entered a judgment of acquittal.
- The State, as petitioner, sought discretionary review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
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 the law of parties permit a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance when the person who physically transferred the substance is a police informant who is immune from prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - McCormick, Presiding Judge
Yes. The law of parties permits a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance even when the person who physically performed the transfer is immune from prosecution. The court's reasoning is grounded in V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 7.03(2), which explicitly states that it is no defense that the person whose conduct forms the basis of the actor's criminal responsibility is immune from prosecution. The statute distinguishes between the 'conduct' that constitutes an offense and the 'criminal responsibility' of the person performing that conduct. Here, the informant's conduct—knowingly delivering amphetamine—was an offense. Since Boyer solicited, directed, and aided this conduct, he is criminally responsible as a party, irrespective of the informant's immunity as an agent of law enforcement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of accomplice liability, or the 'law of parties,' in the context of undercover sting operations. It prevents a defendant from using the legal status of an intermediary, such as a police informant, as a shield against criminal liability. The ruling establishes that the focus of a party-liability analysis must be on the objective nature of the criminal act (the actus reus), not the subjective culpability or legal status of the person who physically performs it. This prevents masterminds of criminal schemes from escaping conviction by directing legally 'innocent' or immune individuals to carry out the core elements of the crime.
