Rodriguez, Carolyn

10/22/26

PD-0423-26

  1. “After concluding there was jury-charge error that was preserved by objection, did the Court of Appeals err in finding that there was no harm to Appellant by the error?”
  2. “Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the two subsections of Sec. 38.13 are alternative manners and means of committing Hindering Proceedings by Disorderly Conduct rather than two separate offenses, and thus there was no error in the application paragraph of the jury charge that would not allow jury unanimity?” 
  3. “Was Sec. 38.13 unconstitutionally applied to Appellant in violation of First Amendment protections?”
  4. “Was the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?” 

Rodriguez attended a meeting of the Tarrant County Commissioners Court to speak during the “public comments” period in opposition to their rules prohibiting the use of profanity.  When she began listing examples the county judge had her removed.  As she was escorted out, she yelled, “Fuck you!”  She also yelled profanities just outside the courtroom, making it difficult to continue with the meeting.  She was convicted for hindering proceedings by disorderly conduct.  Tex. Penal Code § 38.13.

She appealed on multiple grounds.  The court of appeals rejected all of them.  Although it agreed that the offense has multiple gravamina some of which were missing from the abstract instructions of the mental states, it found that harmless because inter alia, 1) the application paragraph clearly explained the elements, and 2) her defense was lack of hinderance, not lack of mental state.  The court of appeals disagreed that Sections 38.13(a) and (b) are separate manners and means requiring unanimity, instead holding that they simply embrace different mental states for the same acts.  It rejected her argument that she was prosecuted for the content of her speech rather than her loud and disruptive conduct, which happened to include words.  Finally, it declined to view the conflicting evidence of guilt in the manner advanced by Rodriguez.

Rodriguez challenges all of these holdings in her petition.