Charlie Baird

In Dixon v. State, the defendant was convicted of incest, indecency with a child, and aggravated sexual assault. The key dispute concerned the State's cross-examination of a defense witness who faced pending felony charges in the same court; the trial court permitted questions about those charges to show bias or motive after overruling defense objections. The Court of Criminal Appeals examined whether the defendant's general objection preserved a claim under Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 608(b) versus the separate bias-impeachment provisions of Rule 612(b), and whether the Court of Appeals had correctly applied preservation doctrines on remand. The court clarified that an objection is preserved when the trial judge explicitly references prior rulings on the same issue and that evidence admissible to prove bias need not satisfy the conviction-based requirements of Rule 608(b).

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the applicant sought to withdraw his guilty plea in a criminal proceeding, but the trial court denied the request and the court of appeals rejected his appeal based on an affidavit indicating no permission to appeal had been granted. After multiple district judges refused to consider his habeas corpus application, the applicant asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to exercise its original jurisdiction over the habeas petition. The court denied leave to file the habeas application without a written order. In a concurring opinion, Judge Baird agreed with the denial, reasoning that an adequate remedy at law existed through a writ of mandamus under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.08, particularly where district judges had failed to act on repeated filings, making habeas relief inappropriate when mandamus could address the inaction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of attempted murder after a shooting, where the jury charge included an abstract definition of self-defense but did not apply that law to the facts of the case or instruct that reasonable doubt on self-defense required acquittal. The defendant had not requested or objected to the self-defense instructions. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, finding the charge error to be of federal constitutional magnitude and harmful under federal standards. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the omission was error under state law because the trial court had included self-defense in the charge, but it was not federal constitutional error, so harm must be assessed under the Almanza standard rather than federal harmless error rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellants Kent Weightman and Matthew McGowan, who were convicted of theft of trade secrets (along with related commercial bribery counts) for obtaining and using machinery drawings belonging to Elliott Turbomachine Company and Dresser-Rand Corporation without authorization. The Court of Appeals had mixed results on the counts, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the theft convictions under Texas Penal Code § 31.05. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the drawings qualified as trade secrets because they contained valuable technical designs and the owners had implemented measures to restrict access. It applied a plain-language reading of the statute's three-pronged definition, rejecting arguments that the information was not secret or that insufficient protective steps had been taken by the companies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071 filed by a death row inmate alleging constitutional violations in his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the application with a written order. The majority reasoned that the application was untimely under the statute's 90-day filing deadline from the date the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, and that an agreed order from the trial court extending the deadline did not authorize late filing. Dissenting opinions argued that the court should exercise its original jurisdiction to consider the merits rather than dismiss based on counsel's delay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a post-conviction habeas corpus application under Article 11.07 challenging a cumulation order in a burglary of a building conviction with a ten-year sentence, where the order referenced only the county of a prior conviction from a different county. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, holding that a cumulation order is not void merely for lacking full details such as cause number, court name, date, and sentence term if it allows the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to properly identify and cumulate the sentences. The court reasoned that the applicant must demonstrate harm from any lack of specificity and that the agency was not cumulating sentences correctly, overruling prior precedents like Ex parte Ashe that had required more specific information in such orders.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, in which the applicant, represented by court-appointed counsel, raised claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel but presented them as an undeveloped list of requested discovery, research, and hearings without citing cases or providing legal analysis. The dissenting opinion states that the court should not address the merits of the application because it appears to function more as a motion for discovery than a proper habeas petition. Instead, the dissent argues for remanding the matter to the habeas court to assess whether the applicant received effective assistance of habeas counsel as mandated by article 11.071 section 2(a). The majority's decision to proceed differently prompted the dissent, which was joined by one other justice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas law challenging a criminal conviction, with the applicant represented by court-appointed counsel. The dissenting opinion observed that the five-and-a-half-page application raised four claims with minimal citations, no quotations from the trial record, and very brief arguments for two of the claims, while counsel had expended fewer than 50 hours and no additional resources on preparation. The dissent concluded that the court should not reach the merits but instead remand to the habeas court to determine whether the applicant received effective assistance of counsel in preparing the application. Because the majority declined to take that approach, the opinion dissents.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' refusal to maintain records of its actions and reasons for decisions on commutation and clemency requests, as required by the Texas Constitution and statutes. The opinion agrees that mandamus relief is warranted based on prior precedent but dissents from the majority's approach, which had held that no minimum federal due process procedures apply to Texas clemency decisions. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard that some minimal procedural safeguards apply, the opinion argues that without records, compliance with due process cannot be assessed and calls for the court to stay an execution and remand the matter to the convicting court for further proceedings on this issue.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, in which the applicant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because the habeas judge denied a request to review the prosecutor's file. The habeas court determined that the statute contains no express provisions for post-conviction discovery but allows resolution of controverted factual issues through affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, personal recollections, or evidentiary hearings. The concurring opinion agrees with that statutory interpretation while observing that courts may still order disclosure of exculpatory evidence from the files, even without explicit statutory authority, and that such access is especially prudent in capital cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In Fritz v. State, a jury convicted the appellant of capital murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. During jury selection, the State used peremptory challenges to strike seven male veniremembers under age thirty, which the appellant challenged as unconstitutional gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance, holding that the State's explanation was not gender-neutral because it rested on assumptions about young men's potential bias or identification with the defendant. The court reasoned that such strikes violated the prohibition on gender-based peremptory challenges established in Batson and extended in J.E.B., as they reinforced stereotypes rather than addressing individual qualifications.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a traffic stop for suspected driving while intoxicated at 1 a.m., after which officers determined the driver was not intoxicated and the initial purpose of the stop was complete. Despite this, officers questioned the driver and passenger about their travel plans, conducted background checks, noted inconsistencies and other factors such as late-night travel in a borrowed car, and detained the vehicle for a canine sniff without consent, leading to discovery of marijuana in the trunk. The trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the additional detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The core reasoning was that, under Terry v. Ohio and related precedents, the observed facts were as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity and did not provide specific, articulable facts justifying prolonged seizure beyond the original stop's purpose.

criminal lawprocedure

The case is a capital murder appeal by Anthony Charles Graves from his conviction for killing six people. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The excerpted opinion consists of a concurrence addressing a procedural issue in opinion drafting, specifically the majority's use of designations like "Victim A" through "Victim F" instead of victims' full names. The concurrence reasons that victims should not be anonymized because there is nothing shameful about being a victim and they do not deserve to be reduced to variables or letters in a legal analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

In Eastep v. State, the appellant was convicted of theft of property valued at $20,000 or more based on an indictment alleging a continuing course of conduct with fifty separate appropriations. The State moved to delete nine of those appropriations that the defense claimed were time-barred, and the trial court granted the motion without prior notice to the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals addressed whether this deletion violated Article 28.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs amendments to indictments. The court concluded that the change was an abandonment of non-substantive allegations rather than an amendment affecting the substance of the charge, because the remaining counts still supported the aggregated theft offense, and therefore notice was not required.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus application by Freda Mowbray, who was convicted of murdering her husband and sentenced to life in prison. Mowbray claimed actual innocence, arguing that the State's blood spatter expert gave false testimony, that the State suppressed favorable evidence from another expert, and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the habeas judge recommended relief, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial. The court's decision rested on findings that the State had withheld a report from blood spatter expert Herbert MacDonell, who concluded the death was more likely a suicide, and that this evidence undermined confidence in the original conviction under due process standards. The opinion also highlighted flaws in the luminol testing used by the State's witness and the lack of physical evidence supporting homicide.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Roberts, the defendant faced criminal charges of misapplication of fiduciary property after a prior civil judgment for breach of fiduciary duty involving insurance proceeds from a former partner. The trial court granted the defendant's pretrial motion to exclude the deceased complainant's civil deposition testimony from the criminal proceeding, ruling it inadmissible hearsay that did not qualify as former testimony or meet the requirements for depositions under Chapter 39 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the State's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that article 44.01(a)(5) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows State appeals only from orders granting motions to suppress evidence that was illegally obtained, not from orders excluding evidence on evidentiary grounds like hearsay where no claim of illegal acquisition was made.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wilson v. State, the appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On automatic appeal, the sole issue was whether the prosecutor committed reversible error during closing argument at the guilt phase by stating that he had taken a sacred oath to seek justice while defense counsel had not and was not obligated to pursue truth or justice. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that such arguments, which attack defense counsel personally and suggest only the State seeks justice, are manifestly improper when uninvited, strike at the defendant over counsel's shoulders, and require reversal under the standards for improper jury argument. The court rejected the State's claim that the remarks were invited by defense counsel's earlier reference to Hitler and reversed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant, an inmate, who was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution after a trial in which eight jurors had previously served on a separate jury selected from the same venire in a similar prosecution of another inmate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the interim jury service process denied the defendant the intelligent exercise of his peremptory challenges. The court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment and Texas Constitution protect the right to question venire members on matters like prior jury service to inform peremptory strikes, and that selecting multiple juries from one venire in similar cases creates a risk of implied bias requiring exclusion of interim jurors. Harm was presumed from the violation, leading to reversal and remand.

criminal lawprocedure

In Austin v. State, the defendant was convicted of bail jumping after failing to appear for trial on a prior controlled substance charge; the key evidence was testimony and letters from his former attorney informing him of the trial date. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that an attorney's notice to a client of a public trial setting is not a confidential communication. The court reasoned that the privilege applies only to communications intended to remain private, and relaying non-confidential court dates does not qualify, consistent with precedents from multiple jurisdictions that treat such notices as non-privileged.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the trial court's failure to give the jury the definitional instruction on reasonable doubt required by Geesa v. State entitled the defendant to automatic reversal of his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the omission was not an absolute systemic requirement under Marin v. State and therefore was subject to a harm analysis under Almanza rather than requiring automatic reversal. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the conviction after finding the error harmless.

criminal lawprocedure