Sullivan v. State

I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly concludes that the state need not allege which of the two avenues of proof on which it will rely, 0.10 alcohol concentration or loss of faculties. However, the majority errs when they conclude that the state need not allege the intoxicant relied upon to prove intoxication and finds that “intoxication is a condition and not an act.” This conclusion is in direct conflict with the holdings of the court of criminal appeals in Garcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), Solis v. State, 787 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) and State v. Winskey,…