Esseabasi Samuel Williams v. State
499 S.W.3d 498, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6970 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute criminalizing the act of obtaining, possessing, or using another person's identifying information with the specific intent to harm or defraud regulates non-communicative conduct, not protected speech, and therefore does not facially violate the First Amendment.
Facts:
- On or about January 23, 2013, Esseabasi Samuel Williams worked with other individuals in a combination.
- As part of this combination, Williams obtained, possessed, and used the identifying information of other people.
- The identifying information included the complainants' names, dates of birth, and social security numbers.
- Williams's actions were undertaken without the consent of the individuals whose information he used.
- Williams acted with the specific intent to defraud and harm the other individuals.
Procedural Posture:
- Esseabasi Samuel Williams was indicted by the state for the offense of engaging in a group criminal activity, specifically the fraudulent use of identifying information.
- In the trial court, Williams filed a motion to quash the indictment, arguing that Texas Penal Code section 32.51 was facially unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied Williams's motion to quash.
- Following the denial, Williams pleaded guilty to the offense with an agreed punishment cap and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
- Williams (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to quash to the Texas Court of Appeals, First District.
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 Texas Penal Code section 32.51, which criminalizes obtaining, possessing, or using another's identifying information with intent to harm or defraud, constitute an unconstitutional overbroad, content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Laura Carter Higley
No, Texas Penal Code section 32.51 does not violate the First Amendment. The statute regulates non-communicative conduct rather than protected speech. The court, following its precedent in Horhn v. State, reasoned that the statute's focus is on the criminal act of identity theft, which is defined by the specific intent to harm or defraud. Conduct is considered non-communicative if it is not intended to convey a particularized message that is likely to be understood. The statute targets the harmful consequences of identity theft, not acts of expression. Therefore, because the statute prohibits conduct that is essentially non-communicative, it does not implicate First Amendment protections and is neither overbroad nor an impermissible content-based restriction on speech.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that statutes with a specific 'mens rea' (intent) requirement, particularly an intent to harm or defraud, are less susceptible to First Amendment overbreadth challenges. By classifying identity theft as non-communicative conduct, the court provides a clear framework for prosecuting such crimes without infringing on protected speech. This ruling solidifies the legal distinction between the criminal misuse of information for fraudulent purposes and the legitimate, expressive use of information in contexts like journalism or political debate, ensuring that identity theft laws can be robustly enforced.
Unlock the full brief for Esseabasi Samuel Williams v. State