Tovar v. Texas
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
978 S.W.2d 584 (1998)

- Written by Laura Julien, JD
Facts
David Tovar (defendant), the former president of a school board in Somerset, Texas, was indicted on two charges by the attorney general on behalf of the State of Texas for violating the Texas open-meetings law. Specifically, Tovar was alleged to have knowingly participated in a special closed-session meeting of the school board and to have knowingly called and aided in calling a special closed meeting. Following a jury trial, Tovar was convicted of both charges. The jury was required to determine whether Tovar acted knowingly with regard to calling, aiding in calling, and organizing the special closed meeting. The jury was not required to determine whether Tovar knew that he was violating the open-meetings law when he was calling and participating in the meetings. Consequently, Tovar was ordered to serve six months’ jail time and to pay a $500 fine. However, the trial court suspended Tovar’s sentence and instead imposed court supervision. Tovar filed an appeal, and the court of appeals affirmed Tovar’s convictions. Tovar then filed for discretionary review on the question of whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the convictions based on the conclusion that a public official can be found guilty of violating the open-meetings law if the official did not have personal knowledge that the meeting violated the law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Overstreet, J.)
Concurrence (Baird, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.