Texas furnishing alcohol to a minor — Alcoholic Beverage Code § 106.06

Furnishing alcohol to a minor under Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 106.06 is a Class A misdemeanor — up to one year in county jail and a fine up to $4,000. It reaches buying alcohol for, giving it to, or with criminal negligence making it available to anyone under 21, subject to a narrow parent, guardian, or spouse exception. Below: the statute text, the punishment range, how Texas courts read the knowledge and criminal-negligence elements, and defenses in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County.

The controlling statute

Furnishing alcohol to a minor lives in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, Chapter 106, not the Penal Code — a distinction that matters because the offense still carries county-jail exposure and a permanent misdemeanor record. Section 106.06 is the “social host” provision: it targets the adult who supplies alcohol to someone under 21, whether at a graduation party, a tailgate, a wedding, or a kitchen table. Section 106.06(a) reads:

“Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person commits an offense if he purchases an alcoholic beverage for or gives or with criminal negligence makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor.” — Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 106.06(a)

A “minor,” throughout Chapter 106, is a person under 21 years of age. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 106.01. An “alcoholic beverage” is any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume — beer, wine, and spirits all qualify. § 1.04. Under § 106.06(c), the offense is a Class A misdemeanor. That grading is a modern feature of the statute: older opinions describe a fine-only penalty of $100 to $500, but the Legislature raised the offense to a Class A misdemeanor, and that is the exposure a person faces today — up to a year in the county jail, a fine up to $4,000, or both.

What conduct § 106.06 criminalizes

The statute packs three separate ways to commit the offense into one sentence, each with its own culpable mental state. Understanding which prong the State has actually charged is often the whole case, because the mental state the prosecutor must prove changes from prong to prong.

The first prong is purchasing an alcoholic beverage for a minor — the classic “buy for the kids” scenario, including the adult who accepts cash outside a store and walks in to make the buy. The second is giving an alcoholic beverage to a minor — handing over a drink, stocking a party, leaving a case where a teenager is meant to take it. Neither “purchases for” nor “gives” carries an express mental state in the text, so the general culpability rule of Penal Code § 6.02 supplies one — and Texas courts have read the offense to require that the accused knew the recipient was a minor. The third prong is the one the Legislature wrote a mental state directly into: with criminal negligence makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor. That is the lowest culpable mental state Texas recognizes, and it is where an adult who leaves the liquor cabinet or a stocked cooler within a minor’s easy reach can be prosecuted even without handing anything over.

Two conclusions follow. First, this is not a “strict liability” offense — the State always has a mental state to prove, either knowledge of the minor’s status (purchase/give) or criminal negligence (make available). Second, mere presence at a party where minors drink is not enough. The State must tie the accused to an act of purchasing, giving, or making the alcohol available, not simply to being in the room.

Classification & punishment range

Section 106.06 is a single-grade offense: every way of committing it is a Class A misdemeanor. What changes across the rows below is the conduct and the mental state the State must prove — not the punishment ceiling. The parent/guardian/spouse row is the statutory exception, where the same act is simply not an offense.

A Class A misdemeanor is the most serious misdemeanor grade in Texas, one step below a state-jail felony. Beyond jail and fine, a conviction can carry collateral consequences that outlast the sentence: a permanent criminal record, driver-license impact for offenders under 21, immigration questions for non-citizens, and problems for anyone who holds — or hopes to hold — a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) certification, a teaching certificate, or a professional license. A separate provision, § 106.13, governs administrative penalties against licensees and permittees, which is a different track from the § 106.06 criminal charge against an individual.

Elements the State must prove

Every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Stripped to its parts, a § 106.06 prosecution requires the State to establish:

1. A person outside the exception

The accused must be someone other than the minor’s adult parent, guardian, or spouse (or a court-placed custodian) acting within § 106.06(b). If the exception applies, there is no offense at all — it is an element the State must negate, not merely a defense the accused must raise.

2. A prohibited act — purchase for, give, or make available

The accused purchased an alcoholic beverage for the minor, gave one to the minor, or made one available to the minor. The indictment or information must specify which, and the proof must match the charged manner and means.

3. An alcoholic beverage

The item furnished must meet the § 1.04 definition — more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. Non-alcoholic or mislabeled products fall outside the statute.

4. To a minor — a person under 21

The recipient must have been under 21 at the time (§ 106.01). This is a fact the State must prove, usually by records or testimony — not by assumption.

5. The required culpable mental state

For the “purchase for” and “give” prongs, Texas courts require proof the accused knew the recipient was a minor. For the “make available” prong, the statute requires criminal negligence — a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise. The State proves whichever the charge invokes.

The parent, guardian & spouse exception

Subsection (b) carves out the situation the Legislature chose to leave to families. A person may lawfully purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give one to a minor if that person is the minor’s adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court, and that person is visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage. Both conditions must be met — the qualifying relationship and the visible presence.

The limits are strict, and each one is where cases turn. An adult sibling, aunt, uncle, coach, family friend, or a boyfriend or girlfriend is not a parent, guardian, or spouse, and gets no protection. A parent who buys the alcohol and then leaves the minor to drink it at a party across town is not “visibly present.” And the exception protects only purchasing and giving; it says nothing that would license an adult to furnish alcohol to other people’s children. Texas courts have policed the boundary carefully — declining, for example, to stretch an in-the-place-of-a-parent theory to cover an adult who was not in fact the minor’s parent, guardian, or spouse. The practical upshot: the exception is real, but it is narrow, and prosecutors read it narrowly.

How Texas courts have interpreted § 106.06

Although § 106.06 reads simply, Texas appellate courts have added two defense-critical gloss points: what the State must prove about the accused’s knowledge that the recipient was a minor, and what “criminal negligence” actually requires. The cases below construe the statute’s mental-state elements — the ground on which most furnishing cases are won or lost.

The State must prove actual knowledge of minority — guesswork is not enough. In Starr v. State, the Houston court held that § 106.06 “requires proof that the defendant knew that the person to whom he made alcohol available was a minor,” and that proof the accused merely “should have known, or recklessly disregarded the risk” of minority is legally insufficient because those are “less culpable mental states than actual knowledge.” [1] Actual knowledge may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, but the court reversed and entered an acquittal because the evidence — in a high-school-age setting — equally supported an inference other than guilt. For the “purchase for” and “give” prongs, Starr remains the leading statement that the State cannot convict on appearance and assumption alone.

Appearance alone will not establish that the accused knew. In Axelrod v. State, the same court restated the rule from Starr — that “knowingly” furnishing alcohol to a minor “requires proof that the defendant had actual knowledge that the buyer was a minor” — and added that “appearance alone has been consistently held to be insufficient evidence to establish a defendant’s knowledge of one’s minority.” [2] Importantly, Axelrod affirmed a conviction on a recklessness theory: a club owner who saw underage patrons, never asked for identification, and let them stay could be found to have consciously disregarded the risk. That contrast is the defense map — a young face cannot prove the accused knew, even though deliberately ignoring obvious warning signs may prove a lesser mental state.

“Criminal negligence” means a gross deviation, usually framed as a failure to check identification. The “make available” prong of § 106.06 borrows the same criminal-negligence standard the Legislature used for the sister offense of selling alcohol to a minor under § 106.03. In Edmonson v. State, an Austin court analyzing that § 106.03 standard held the offense has two elements — furnishing to a minor and criminal negligence — and that, because the mental state is criminal negligence, the State must allege and prove the means of the negligence, there the failure to request identification. [3] A jury could find a gross deviation where a photograph showed the buyer appearing “so young” that not checking an ID departed grossly from ordinary care. Because § 106.03 and § 106.06 share the criminal-negligence standard, Edmonson’s analysis maps directly onto a § 106.06 “make available” case: the fight is over whether failing to verify age was truly a gross deviation, not a simple mistake.

Read together, these decisions give a defense two footholds. Where the State charges knowing conduct, it must prove the accused actually knew — not that a reasonable person would have suspected. Where it charges the criminal-negligence “make available” prong, it must prove a gross deviation from ordinary care, which a reasonable age check or a plausible mistake can defeat.

Defense strategies

L and L Law Group builds § 106.06 defenses around the statute’s own limits and the case law above. Common theories include:

• No knowledge of minority. On the “purchase for” and “give” prongs, Starr and Axelrod require actual knowledge that the recipient was under 21. A reasonable belief the person was of age — especially where a plausible ID was shown — attacks the element head-on.
• No gross deviation. On the “make available” prong, an adult who took reasonable steps — asked ages, checked identification, kept alcohol secured — did not grossly deviate from ordinary care, which is what criminal negligence demands under Edmonson.
• The § 106.06(b) exception. Where the accused is the minor’s adult parent, guardian, or spouse (or court-placed custodian) and was visibly present, the conduct is not an offense at all.
• No qualifying act. Presence at a gathering where minors drink is not “purchasing for,” “giving,” or “making available.” The State must tie the accused to a specific act, not to the room.
• The item was not an alcoholic beverage, or the recipient was not a minor. Both are elements. Mislabeled or non-alcoholic products and recipients who were in fact 21 or older defeat the charge.
• Identity and attribution. Who actually bought or handed over the alcohol — at a crowded party, a tailgate, a store parking lot — is frequently contestable through witnesses, receipts, and video.
• Unlawful stop or search. Where the evidence flows from a traffic stop, a party sweep, or a TABC operation, a motion to suppress under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.23 can remove the State’s proof.
• Diversion and dismissal outcomes. For first-time accused with no record, many county and Frisco-area courts offer pretrial diversion or conditional dismissal, positioning the case for later expunction.

For a broader look at how these theories fit together, see our forthcoming Texas criminal defense strategies hub and our guides to failure to identify and record-clearing options.

Furnishing vs. MIP, DUI by a minor & sale to a minor

Chapter 106 creates a family of underage-alcohol offenses, and they are routinely confused — and sometimes charged together after a single party or traffic stop. The distinctions decide who is charged and how serious the exposure is.

Furnishing (§ 106.06) vs. Minor in Possession (§ 106.05)

Section 106.06 charges the adult supplier; Minor in Possession under § 106.05 charges the minor who possesses the alcohol. MIP is typically a Class C misdemeanor (fine-only) with alcohol-awareness and community-service components — a far lighter grade than the Class A furnishing charge the supplier faces.

Furnishing (§ 106.06) vs. DUI by a Minor (§ 106.041)

DUI by a Minor under § 106.041 punishes a person under 21 who operates a motor vehicle or watercraft with any detectable amount of alcohol. It is about the minor’s driving, not the adult’s supplying — but the two often appear in the same file when a minor is stopped after leaving a party.

Furnishing (§ 106.06) vs. Sale to a Minor (§ 106.03)

Section 106.03 covers the commercial sale of alcohol to a minor — the clerk, bartender, or licensee. Section 106.06 covers the non-sale scenario: buying for, giving to, or making alcohol available. Both are Class A misdemeanors and both use a criminal-negligence standard, which is why Edmonson’s § 106.03 analysis applies to § 106.06.

When a minor is driving with a passenger — and when a child is involved

Furnishing charges frequently travel alongside driving offenses. If an intoxicated adult drives with a child passenger, that is a separate felony — see DWI with a child passenger. Underage-alcohol matters that involve juveniles are handled through our juvenile defense practice.