# State v. Johnson, Terence

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 7, 2015 · 475 S.W.3d 860

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815710

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas v. Terence JOHNSON, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 7, 2015
- **Citations:** 475 S.W.3d 860; 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1057; 2015 WL 5853115
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyers
- **Judges:** Alcala, Keller, Meyers, Newell, Yeary
- **Cited by:** 62 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/9815710

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “under the First Amendment’s ‘overbreadth’ doctrine, a law -3- 04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR may be declared unconstitutional on its face, even if it may have some legitimate application and even if the parties before the court were not engaged in activity prote…
- holding challenged statute must prohibit substantial amount of protected expression and danger of unconstitutional -8- 04-18-00127-CR application cannot be based on fanciful hypotheticals
- holding Texas flag-desecration statute facially unconstitutional

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION
Meyers, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
I disagree that the destruction-of-a-flag statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. The statute is actually quite specific; “A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas.” Tex. Penal Code § 42.11. It serves to keep people from destroying a symbol of our nation and state, which is exactly what Appellee did here. By all accounts, he was not attempting to make any type of statement, so his conduct is not protected under the First Amendment. Although it is the *885 flag’s symbolism that provides it specialized protection under this statute, its use as a symbol of expression is exempted from prosecution and thus the limited enforcement of the statute will not produce a chilling effect on protected conduct. The State could just as.easily promulgate a statute prohibiting the killing of a mockingbird, which as the.State bird of Texas also has great symbolism, without- infringing on the freedom of expression.
Because it is overkill to declare this statute unconstitutional when the -real question is merely whether the State had sufficient evidence to convict Appellee of destruction of a flag, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815710. Public record. Not legal advice.