Texas Courts of Appeals
State v. Robles, et al.
Nos. 04-20-00244-CR through -00246-CR 8/4/21
Issue:
Is the State required to file a motion for a new trial to preserve its objection to a trial court’s sua sponte dismissal for want of prosecution without notice or a hearing?
Holding:
No. Because the State in these cases did not affirmatively waive its right by consenting to a dismissal, the Court held that the State may assert its right for the first time on appeal under these unique circumstances. In 14 similar cases against different defendants, the judge’s actions in dismissing the cases and imposing court costs on the county attorney were impermissible, because the defendants did not assert their right to a speedy trial or seek a dismissal on speedy trial or due process grounds. Unless there has been a denial or violation of a defendant’s rights, a trial court does not have the authority to dismiss a misdemeanor complaint. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Read opinion.
Commentary:
Each of these cases was handled separately on appeal, and the trial court’s order dismissing the case was upheld in some of the cases in which the State had actually filed a motion to dismiss. The main issue here is in those cases in which the court of appeals correctly reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the cases. It has long been the law that a trial judge cannot dismiss a case on his own, and these decisions follow that long-standing line of authority. There was no evidence presented in support of a speedy-trial violation. The defendants did not even make any claims or file any briefs on appeal. This was purely a dispute between the prosecutor and the trial judge.
Monroy v. State
No. 11-19-00257-CR 8/5/21
Issue:
Did a prosecutor improperly state during closing arguments that the defendant could have called his mother as a witness to defend against the allegations?
Holding:
No. A prosecutor may comment in closing arguments on the defendant’s failure to call an available, competent, and material witness. As such, a jury is permitted to infer that witness’s testimony would have been unfavorable to the defendant. Here, the Court also agreed “the door had been opened” during closing arguments for the State to refute the defendant’s implication that the sexual assaults did not occur because his mother’s presence in the home made it impossible. Read opinion.
Commentary:
A prosecutor should always be very careful in making such an argument, but here it seems to have been well within the bounds of propriety. It was clear that the defendant’s mother was available to testify, and defense counsel make it a point to say that the alleged sexual assaults of the victim could not have happened because they all happened when the defendant’s mother was present.
Guyger v. State
No. 05-19-01236-CR 8/5/21
Issue:
Was evidence at trial legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for murder after she presented mistake-of-fact and self-defense theories?
Holding:
Yes. Differentiating a mistake of fact and mere justification, the Court held the facts in the case did not negate the defendant’s intent to kill but instead related only to whether she was justified in defending herself because she believed she was in her own apartment and that the victim was an intruder. In addition, the Court concluded the jury reasonably rejected a self-defense claim after hearing testimony that the victim was seated in his apartment without a weapon, and neighbors only heard gunshots and no warnings from the defendant. Additionally, the Court noted that an officer testified that police training mandated taking a position of cover and concealment rather than entering a residence after finding an intruder. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is a very tragic case that obviously developed a lot of attention from the public, but the issues in the case are fairly straightforward. The defendant presented a mistake-of-fact defense and self-defense together to justify her conduct. And she claimed that she should have been convicted of criminally negligent homicide instead of murder. The jury rejected both of those suggestions, and it is very difficult to overturn a jury verdict under these circumstances. The evidence was undisputed that the defendant acted with the intent to kill. The defendant’s mistaken belief—that she was in her own apartment—did not negate the culpability required for the charged offense of murder, and because the defendant acted with the intent to kill, she did not act with mere criminal negligence.
Garcia v. State
No. 14-19-00086-CR 8/10/21
Issue:
Was evidence at trial sufficient to prove the victim suffered serious bodily injury as a result of being shot by the defendant?
Holding:
No. Although the evidence established the defendant shot the victim twice, the State was required to present specific evidence regarding the nature of the injuries inflicted. Because there was no evidence the bullets hit any vital organs or caused any serious or lasting impairment or disfigurement, the Court held the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault on a family member resulting in serious bodily injury. Read opinion.
Dissent (Poissant, J.):
Based on the evidence presented at trial—that the victim suffered two gunshot wounds near vital organs, bled profusely, lost consciousness, required emergency room treatment, still has bullet fragments in her right thigh and scars from the bullet wounds, and the emergency room physician who treated the victim establishing that the victim suffered serious bodily injury which could have caused her death—the jury could have reasonably found that the assault caused serious bodily injury and that she was exposed to a substantial risk of death. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The next time you get shot in the chest, do not get upset (or more upset than you already are) if the doctor leans over your bleeding body and says, “Well, at least it’s not serious.” Hopefully, the Court of Criminal Appeals will review the majority opinion.
Texas Attorney General Opinions
KP-0379 8/11/21
Issue:
May access to a government facility be conditioned upon obtaining a vaccine issued under emergency usage authorization?
Conclusion:
No. Pursuant to Executive Order GA-38, Texas state agencies and political subdivisions may not condition an individual’s access to a government facility on receipt of a vaccine administered under emergency use authorization and not yet approved by the FDA. Furthermore, pursuant to SB 968, passed by the 87th Legislature, a governmental entity in Texas may not issue a COVID-19 vaccine passport or any other documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination status for any purpose other than health care. Implicit in this prohibition is that a governmental entity may not issue a COVID-19 vaccine passport and condition entry to a governmental facility on possession of it. This prohibition is not limited to vaccines issued under emergency use authorization and therefore will also apply to COVID-19 vaccines with full FDA approval. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The opinion request was limited to governmental facilities (presumably including schools) and vaccines approved under an emergency use authorization (the only kind of vaccines that exist at the moment). But the opinion answers a question that was not asked, and it turns to the recently passed Senate Bill to note that the same answer would apply for private businesses and vaccines that have received full FDA approval. The opinion also notes that the Senate Bill has already taken effect. Nevertheless, you can be certain that you have not heard the last of this.
KP-0380 8/11/21
Issue:
What effect do the Governor’s executive orders have on the federal requirements related to face coverings on public transit?
Conclusion:
Texas Executive Order GA-38 prohibits governmental entities from requiring any person to wear a face covering or to mandate that another person wear a face covering. Federal orders issued by the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) attempt to require persons traveling on public transit to wear a mask and to require local transit authorities to enforce the federal mandate. However, a court could conclude that the CDC and the TSA lack statutory authority to issue the face covering orders, particularly with respect to intrastate public transit systems. Furthermore, a court may have a basis to conclude that TSA’s directive violates the Americans with Disabilities Act or is an unconstitutional attempt to commandeer local officials to enforce a federal regulatory scheme. Given the many concerns regarding the authority of the CDC and TSA to issue the federal orders requiring facial coverings on public transport, we are unable to definitively conclude that those orders preempt the Governor’s Executive Order GA-38. Read opinion.
Commentary:
There are a number of different issues floating around in this relatively short opinion, and you can be certain that it only scratches the surface of what will eventually be litigated. The opinion centers on the federal statutes and regulations that give power to the CDC and TSA, as well as the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any definitive construction of those statutes and regulations will occur in federal court. Some federal decisions are cited in this opinion, but there are sure to be more.