Farmer v. State
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
411 S.W.3d 901 (2013)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Kody William Farmer (defendant) took prescription drugs due to a work-related back injury. Typically, he took two painkillers every morning. His wife would set them out on top of the microwave for him to take before driving to work. Farmer’s doctor also prescribed him Ambien, a sleep aid, with instructions to take it at night. One day shortly after Farmer began taking Ambien, his wife put out his pills on the microwave as usual, including the Ambien, placing the two painkillers separate from the Ambien. Farmer mistakenly ingested the Ambien that morning and left for work in his car. Police pulled Farmer over for suspected driving while intoxicated, and a blood test confirmed he had Ambien in his system. At trial, Farmer asked the court to include a jury instruction on the defense of voluntariness, meaning the jury could not find him not guilty if they found that he did not voluntarily become intoxicated. The court denied Farmer’s request, and he was convicted. The first court of appeal agreed with Farmer, finding that the facts supported Farmer’s argument that he involuntarily took Ambien because of his wife’s act in putting it on top of the microwave with his other pills, justifying a jury instruction on voluntariness. The state (plaintiff) appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hervey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.