Tom Price

The case involved a capital murder defendant who, prior to voir dire, sought to question the venire panel about whether they understood that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher legal standard than both preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence, with examples of each. The trial court denied the request, relying on Paulson v. State to avoid defining reasonable doubt, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held that the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting a proper question that would have allowed the defendant to intelligently exercise challenges for cause and peremptory strikes. The core reasoning was that such a question seeks jurors' views on an applicable legal issue without improperly committing them to a verdict or providing an impermissible definition, and denying it violated the defendant's rights under the Texas Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pled guilty to driving while intoxicated after the constitutional county judge appointed a municipal-court judge to preside over his pretrial motions to suppress evidence. The defendant later moved to set aside the suppression rulings, arguing the appointment violated statutory requirements for notice and agreement, but the county judge denied the motion; on appeal, the court of appeals reversed the conviction, holding the municipal judge's orders void and challengeable for the first time on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to address whether those orders were void (not merely voidable) and whether the defendant forfeited any claim by failing to object during the hearing itself. The court held that the defendant adequately preserved his complaint by raising it in a motion before pleading guilty, rendering it unnecessary to decide if the orders were void.

criminal lawprocedure

In Steadman v. State, the defendant was convicted in a single jury trial of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child, receiving concurrent life and twenty-year sentences. The trial court excluded four of the defendant's family members from the courtroom during voir dire, over defense objection that the exclusion violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; the trial judge provided no on-the-record findings justifying the closure, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusion constituted structural error under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Presley v. Georgia and Waller v. Georgia. The court reasoned that the right to a public trial extends to jury selection, that the trial court's sua sponte closure without satisfying the Waller factors required reversal, and that precedent from multiple jurisdictions establishes that such a violation during voir dire necessitates a new trial rather than a harm analysis or lesser remedy.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a defendant convicted of manslaughter sought post-conviction DNA testing on a knife introduced at trial as the murder weapon, which presumptively tested positive for blood but had not undergone DNA analysis. After testing showed the biological material did not belong to the victim, the convicting court granted a new trial under Article 64.04, finding a reasonable probability the jury would not have convicted with the new evidence. The court of appeals reversed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that Chapter 64 does not authorize the convicting court to grant a new trial—its jurisdiction ended long before—and that the DNA results, viewed with trial evidence including witness identifications, were insufficient to support the favorable finding. The core reasoning relied on statutory limits in Chapter 64, which permits only testing and findings but not new trials, and requires de novo review of whether exculpatory results would have altered the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gary Lyn Black's conviction for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, where he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and arrest based on outstanding warrants. Black argued that the warrants were invalid because supporting affidavits were executed after the warrants were issued, and that the trial court improperly allowed the State to reopen the suppression hearing during trial to present additional testimony from the issuing judge. The trial court denied the motion to suppress after hearing the supplemental evidence showing that one warrant was based on the judge's personal observation of the offense, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in supplementing the record and that the evidence supported the validity of the arrest under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 45.103, affirming the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bowen v. Carnes, the relators Kevin and Jennifer Bowen filed an original mandamus proceeding challenging the trial court's order disqualifying their retained counsel, Robert Phillips, from representing them in their pending capital murder prosecution. Phillips had previously represented a key prosecution witness, William Ballenger, in an unrelated criminal matter, prompting the State to move for disqualification over concerns that Phillips might be limited in cross-examining Ballenger, even though both the relators and Ballenger had executed waivers of conflict-free representation. The trial court granted the motion based on the integrity of the judicial process and public perception of fairness. The court granted mandamus relief, concluding that the trial judge abused his discretion by depriving the relators of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice solely on public-perception grounds without evidence of an actual conflict or serious potential for one involving confidential information.

criminal lawprocedure