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

In this case, a jury was empaneled and sworn in a misdemeanor driving while intoxicated prosecution, but one juror became ill and unavailable, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial over the defendant's objection despite requests for a continuance. The defendant then sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the lack of manifest necessity for the mistrial meant retrial would violate double jeopardy protections. The trial court denied relief, but the court of appeals reversed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to address whether the mistrial was improper without first considering proceeding with five jurors after the defendant indicated tentative willingness to waive a full six-person jury. The court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the trial court should have explored that alternative before declaring a mistrial. The core reasoning focused on the requirement to consider less drastic options to avoid double jeopardy violations when a juror becomes disabled after empanelment.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the State prosecuted Abran Elias for felony possession of over 2000 pounds of marijuana after a traffic stop for failing to signal a turn led to discovery of outstanding arrest warrants, a K-9 drug sniff alerting on the vehicle, and recovery of approximately 300 pounds of marijuana inside. The trial court granted Elias's motion to suppress the evidence, the El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that the stop lacked specific articulable facts justifying a traffic violation and the warrants did not purge any taint because Elias was secured in a squad car before the search, and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to examine those holdings. The court vacated the appeals court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the lower courts had not adequately addressed whether the officer could have observed the signaling violation from his position and whether the discovery of the warrants attenuated any potential illegality under the Fourth Amendment factors from Brown v. Illinois.

criminal lawprocedure

In this post-conviction habeas corpus case, the applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, released on an appeal bond after an initial reversal, and remained at large after the appellate mandate affirming his conviction issued in 1987 because no warrant was served until 2007 and authorities took no action to recall him. He lived openly without further convictions during that time and sought day-for-day credit on his sentence for the period of erroneous release. The court granted relief, holding that the applicant was entitled to credit for the time he was at large through no fault of his own, which fully discharged his sentence and required his immediate release. The decision relied on precedents granting sentence credit in analogous cases of inadvertent release by the state.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether forging and passing a fake Wal-Mart store receipt qualified as forgery of a "commercial instrument" under Texas Penal Code Section 32.21(d), elevating the offense from a misdemeanor to a state jail felony. Shipp was convicted at trial after a jury found the receipt met that definition, and his punishment was enhanced based on prior convictions. The court of appeals reversed the conviction on sufficiency grounds, applying ejusdem generis to conclude that a receipt merely memorializes a past transaction and is not akin to the enumerated commercial instruments that grant or cede legal rights. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the trial court's conviction and sentence, construing the statute to encompass the forged receipt as a commercial instrument.

criminal law

In Derichsweiler v. State, the appellant was detained by police in a Wal-Mart parking lot after citizens reported his repeated staring, grinning, and circling of their vehicle and others on New Year's Eve, leading to his arrest for driving while intoxicated. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the resulting evidence, but a panel of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient reasonable suspicion because no specific criminal offense was indicated. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision, holding that the totality of the circumstances—including the detailed citizen reports of the appellant's peculiar conduct relayed through the 911 dispatcher—provided officers with reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative detention, even without identifying a particular crime. The court reasoned that reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause and can arise from information suggesting possible criminal activity, such as stalking or robbery, based on the collective knowledge of the police.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ex Parte Rendon, the applicant sought post-conviction habeas relief under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07, claiming his guilty plea to cocaine possession with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone was involuntary due to trial counsel's erroneous advice that he would be parole-eligible within 12-18 months, when in fact he was ineligible for the full five-year sentence. The convicting court recommended denying relief after attorneys denied giving such advice, but the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed whether the application was properly verified since the applicant did not sign it and his counsel did. The court held that an applicant need not personally verify the application, as a petitioner filing on his behalf may do so according to belief under Article 11.14, but found the attorney's verification deficient under Rule 73.1(d) due to an issue with the court's prescribed form. It therefore dismissed the application without prejudice to allow refiling in compliance with proper procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant indicted for aggravated sexual assault who was convicted by a jury of the lesser offense of aggravated assault, which was not a lesser-included offense under the indictment. The court of appeals vacated the conviction as void for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for entry of an acquittal. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case by virtue of the felony indictment, so the submission of the lesser offense was trial error rather than a jurisdictional defect, and that ordering acquittal was improper absent any determination that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction or a de facto acquittal at trial. The court therefore vacated the appellate judgment and remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings to assess harm from the jury charge error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Dobbs, police officers executing a lawful narcotics search warrant at the defendant's residence observed golf clubs and shirts in plain view that appeared suspicious but lacked initial probable cause to connect to a crime. While still on the premises, the officers contacted dispatch and the country club to confirm the items were stolen, then seized them. The trial court and court of appeals suppressed the evidence under prior precedent from White v. State requiring that incriminating character be immediately apparent without further investigation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the seizure was valid under the Fourth Amendment because probable cause developed while officers remained lawfully present without an additional unjustified search or unduly prolonged presence, and it disavowed White to the extent it conflicted with this rule.

criminal law

In this case, the defendant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child under six years old, a first-degree felony with a 25-year minimum sentence. The parties agreed to amend the indictment to remove the under-six allegation to allow a guilty plea to a lesser offense with a 21-year sentence, but only the written judicial confession supporting the plea was physically altered, not the indictment itself. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the sentence based on the unamended indictment. The court of appeals held that the alteration effectively amended the indictment to a second-degree offense, making the 21-year sentence illegal. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, ruling that an amendment to a judicial confession does not constitute an amendment to the indictment under Articles 28.10 and 28.11.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a late-night interaction between a police officer and Sheldon Keith Crain, who was walking in a residential area, amounted to a consensual encounter or a Fourth Amendment detention. After the officer directed Crain to approach his patrol car, smelled marijuana, conducted a pat-down, and discovered a firearm, Crain was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, ruling the initial contact was a mere encounter. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the officer's order to come over, combined with the circumstances, effected a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion, which was absent at the outset. The court emphasized that a reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard the directive and that compliance with the command did not convert the interaction into a voluntary encounter.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned two Texas criminal trials in which, after a 2007 statutory amendment, trial courts permitted alternate jurors to remain present during jury deliberations (though they could not vote unless a regular juror became disabled). The defendants appealed their convictions, contending that the alternate jurors' presence violated the Texas Constitution's twelve-person jury requirement and statutes barring non-jurors from the deliberation room. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that allowing the alternates to observe did not violate the constitutional mandate of a twelve-member jury, since only the regular jurors voted on the verdicts. The court further ruled that any statutory objections were forfeited because the defendants failed to raise them at trial when the alternates were sent to deliberate, and therefore reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hubert v. State, the appellant, a felon on parole, was arrested at the home he shared with his grandfather after a parole warrant issued based on violations reported by the grandfather; police then obtained the grandfather's consent to search the house, including the appellant's bedroom where they found firearms and ammunition, leading to a new charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The appellant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the grandfather lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the bedroom search under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, the appellant pled guilty, and the court of appeals reversed, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the grandfather, as owner of the home, had actual authority to consent because he exercised common control over the premises and the appellant's occupancy did not create exclusive privacy expectations in the bedroom. The court therefore reversed the court of appeals and upheld the search without addressing apparent authority.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved the prosecution of Pamela Langham for possession of trace amounts of cocaine, where the State introduced testimony from a police detective recounting statements from a confidential informant about drug trafficking at the residence Langham shared with others, including identification of individuals involved. Langham objected on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds under Crawford v. Washington, but the trial court overruled the objections and allowed the testimony as background for obtaining a search warrant; the jury convicted her. The court of appeals affirmed, finding the statements non-testimonial or any error harmless, and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to assess those conclusions regarding the Sixth Amendment and Texas appellate rules on harmless error.

criminal lawprocedure

In McFatridge v. State, the appellant, convicted of driving while intoxicated, sought appointed counsel and a free court reporter's record on appeal by filing a sworn statement claiming indigency based on $550 monthly income and limited expenses. The trial court held a hearing where the State presented evidence of her ownership of non-exempt real property valued at $6,670, antiques worth about $3,000, and prior-year income exceeding local indigency thresholds tied to federal poverty guidelines, while questioning her claimed expenses. The trial court found her not indigent and denied the requests, a ruling the court of appeals upheld. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the record reasonably supported the trial court's determination that the appellant had sufficient income and assets to retain counsel and pay for the record, and that she had not rebutted the State's evidence.

criminal lawprocedure