STATE vs. JOHNSON, TERENCE Appeal from County Court at Law of Houston County (dissenting by judge meyers)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD–0228–14 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. TERENCE JOHNSON, Appellee ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON COUNTY M EYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. 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.” T EX. P ENAL C ODE §42.11. It serves to keep people from destroying a symbol of our nation and state, which is exactly what Appellee did here. By Johnson dissent–Page 2 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 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. Filed: October 7, 2015 Publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
