As a criminal defense attorney, it is crucial to stay up-to-date with all Texas laws that may impact your clients' cases. One such law that can often be at the center of a criminal case is Texas Penal Code Section 6.01, which defines the terms of "voluntary act," "omission," and "possession" within the context of criminal activity.

​

Subsection (a) of Section 6.01 states that an offense must involve an act, omission, or possession. An act is defined as a "voluntary bodily movement," while an omission is the failure to perform an act required by law. Possession is defined as the knowing obtaining, receiving, or control of an object for a sufficient amount of time to allow the possessor to terminate their control.

​

Subsection (b) provides additional context for possession, explaining that it must be a voluntary act on the part of the possessor. They must knowingly obtain or receive the object or be aware of their control over it for a sufficient amount of time. If the possession was not voluntary, it may not meet the requirements for a criminal offense.

Finally, Subsection (c) clarifies that an omission to perform an act is not necessarily an offense unless a law specifies that the omission is a criminal offense or creates a legal duty to perform the act.

​

Understanding the nuances of Section 6.01 can be crucial in building a strong defense for your client. For example, if your client was in possession of an object but did not knowingly obtain it or was not aware of their control over it, their possession may not meet the requirements for a criminal offense. Additionally, if the law does not specifically require an individual to perform an act, then their omission may not result in criminal charges.

 

In Brown v. State, a case decided by the court of criminal appeals in 2002 a person who was charged with possession of marijuana in a jail was deemed to have not committed a voluntary act because the police brought him to the jail .  The court of criminal appeals ruled against him finding "Appellant makes no claim of involuntary physical bodily movements but asserts only that he, 'in custody, under restraint,' was compelled to enter into the correctional facility. We conclude that the court of appeals erred in holding the evidence legally insufficient to establish that appellant voluntarily took marihuana into the jail. Accordingly, we sustain the SPA's ground for review, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court."  Brown v. State, 89 S.W.3d 630, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

​

"`Voluntariness,' within the meaning of section 6.01(a), refers only to one's physical bodily movements." Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1119 (1997); Alford v. State, supra, 866 S.W.2d at 624. We have held that "the term `voluntarily' as utilized in section 6.01(a) means the absence of an accidental act, omission or possession." Alford, supra at 624. We have also held that "the issue of the voluntariness of one's conduct, or bodily movements, is separate from the issue of one's mental state." Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 230 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 (1994).

Brown v. State, 89 S.W.3d 630, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) 

 

The key part of the holding is as follows, “Specifically, we held that voluntarily "means the absence of an accidental act, omission or possession," and that voluntariness "refers only to one's physical bodily movements."” Brown v. State, 89 S.W.3d 630, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession. (b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control. (c) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 3, Sec. 1, eff. Feb. 25, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.