I am glad to see someone official agreed with us. I have always said the definition in 49.01 applied, which is what I meant by hating to question because I agreed. I really just wanted to see his logic and where the quotes definition came from because the post I referenced made it look like the definition was included in 46.035, which it is not. It is important to see that the GC subchapter on CHL's includes that , but it is only an indicator that it applies to 46.035 too. The problem is that the whole section (411.171) on definitions specifically says "in this chapter".Greybeard wrote:Steve - Re: Your "I hate to question you when I agree with what you are saying, but can you explain where this line came from? It is not part of the penal code in Chapter 46 that I have."
Crossfire may want to address that individually, but " "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code. "
(IIRC - not at office to double check) is what (now retired) Sgt. Riddle quoted to us in an instructor newsletter years ago after the subject became a controversial issue when first included as a test question.
Normally, that means you could not carry the definition to even another chapter of the GC, let alone back to the Penal Code. But this is why I always try to add in the Code Construction Act (chapter 311 of the Government Code). This act says:
I have always said that intoxication has taken on a technical meaning by virtue of the definition in 49.01. As proof, I almost always will argue that people no longer use intoxication to mean drunk. Drunk means much more than simply intoxicated and intoxicated means "legally" intoxicated for DWI, as defined in 49.01.Sec. 311.011. COMMON AND TECHNICAL USAGE OF WORDS. (a) Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.
(b) Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.
Now that someone pointed out the reference in the GC, it is even a much stronger argument that the definition in 49.01 was intended to apply to CHL's.