# Schultz v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 17, 1996 · 923 S.W.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663082

## Case

- **Full name:** Theresa Ellen SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 17, 1996
- **Citations:** 923 S.W.2d 1; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 44; 1996 WL 180701
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Baird, Clinton, Keller, Mansfield, Meyers, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663082

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that offense of abandoning or endangering a child can dispense with requirement of awareness of danger because person subject to that offense has already assumed a duty to act reasonably, and it is the neglect of this duty that is criminalized
- stating “[w]e agree with the Court of Appeals that, according to the plain language of Sec. 22.041, the fact that ‘intentionally’ immediately 'precedes ‘abandons’ means that the prescribed mental state is connected with the act of abandonment itself ’
- concluding that “evidence and inferences permitted to be drawn from it” supported defendant’s child-abandonment conviction

## Opinion text

MALONEY and MANSFIELD, JJ.,
concur with note: I concur in the judgment of the Court, believing that proof of intentional abandonment as defined by the statute, with *5 out requiring proof of an additional mens rea, is all that is necessary to sustain a conviction under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 22.041(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663082. Public record. Not legal advice.