Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Espinosa
No. PD-0276-22 04/12/23
Issue:
Did an officer have probable cause to believe that defendant had recently operated a vehicle when she was found with the engine running, asleep at the wheel in a school pickup line, but there was no direct evidence showing the defendant arrived in her vehicle after becoming intoxicated?
Holding:
Yes. The court held there was a link between the defendant’s vehicle’s spot in a bumper-to-bumper school pickup line, and her time of arrival at the school. Although the defendant’s statements about where she came from and where she was headed were not admissions that she had recently operated her vehicle, her place in line would mean the cars in front of her arrived unreasonably early to the location. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to suppress. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is a decision in support of common-sense interpretations and the consideration of circumstantial evidence. In order for the defendant’s position to be accurate, the drivers of the first three or four vehicles would have to arrive after the defendant, drive past the defendant, and then back up to be in front of the defendant. That interpretation was not reasonable at trial, and it was not reasonable on appeal. It defies common sense. This decision should be helpful in all DWI-stop cases, and it may even be helpful in DWI-sufficiency cases.
Texas Court of Appeals
Johnson v. State
No. 14-21-00283-CR 04/06/23
Issue:
Did the trial court err by admitting three exhibits—certified copies of orders of deferred adjudication and judgments of convictions—because the prior offenses were not sufficiently linked to the defendant by fingerprint evidence?
Holding:
No. The trial court did not err by admitting the exhibits because the defendant’s name and unique Texas state identification number appearing on the judgments sufficiently linked the documents to the defendant. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case is in a long line of decisions that uphold a number of ways to connect a defendant to one of his prior convictions. Prosecutors should rely upon this case, especially if a defendant can be connected to his prior conviction with his state identification number.
Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0441 4/11/23
Issue:
May a magistrate appointed by a judge or group of judges under Government Code Chapter 54 simultaneously serve as staff legal counsel for the appointing judge or judges and for the other appointed magistrates?
Conclusion:
Neither the dual-officeholding prohibition in Texas Constitution Art. XVI, §40(a) nor the common-law incompatibility doctrine prohibit a criminal-law magistrate appointed under Government Code Chapter 54 from serving as staff legal counsel to the judges appointing the magistrate. Similarly, Government Code Chapter 575 likely does not preclude the dual service.
The question whether the simultaneous service violates the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys or the Code of Judicial Conduct for magistrates is a question that cannot be determined in an Attorney General opinion. Read opinion.
Requested by:
S. Renee Tidwell, Tarrant County Auditor