Court of Criminal Appeals
Sledge v. State
Nos. PD-0065-22 through -067-22 03/08/2023
Issue:
When a trial court grants a motion for new trial based only on the bare recitation that “the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence,” without more, may the accused be tried again for the same offense without violating principles of double jeopardy?
Holding:
No. The defendant’s second trial violated double jeopardy and acquittal is the required result, because the record has no explanation for the trial court’s decision to grant the motion for a new trial and because precedent is clear that the language “contrary to the law and evidence,” without additional context, raises a legal sufficiency challenge. Read opinion.
Dissenting: (Yeary, J.):
“In my view, the court of appeals had discretion to refuse to entertain the merits of the claim, which was brought by the State at such a late stage of the proceedings. As I read the court of appeals’ opinion denying rehearing, it did refuse to address the claim on the merits. Thus, there is no double jeopardy issue before this Court to address on discretionary review.” Read dissent.
Commentary:
Longstanding Texas precedent establishes that a trial court in a criminal case does not have authority to enter a judgment non obstante veredicto (“JNOV”)—i.e., a judgment different from that rendered by the jury, such as an acquittal—but must, instead enter a judgment that reflects the jury’s verdict. See State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, §1(7). However, as this case illustrates, if the trial court grants the defendant’s motion for new trial on only the grounds that the “verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence[,]” the court’s order is construed as granted legal-sufficiency challenge, which then obligates the court to enter a judgment of acquittal (note that this MNT order and subsequent judgment of acquittal is what triggers potential double jeopardy issues).
There is no record in this case as to what the parties’ intentions were when the defendant filed his MNT alleging only contrary-to-law grounds and the State did not oppose it, although it certainly seems that the parties meant at that time only for the defendant to actually get a new trial, not an acquittal. As the CCA states, though, this is a cautionary tale inasmuch as if an acquittal is not what the State intends when it effectively agrees to a defendant’s MNT that alleges only contrary-to-law grounds, then the State must create a record to show the parties’ actual intentions, or must pursue a State’s appeal after the trial court enters the MNT order on only contrary-to-law grounds. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(3) (authorizing the State to appeal a trial court’s order granting a new trial on any grounds).
Igboji v. State
No. PD-0936-20 03/08/2023
Issue:
For exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless seizure by officers of personal property, such as a cell phone, must affirmative conduct by the suspect show that destruction of evidence is imminent?
Holding:
No. “For exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless seizure of personal property … the record must show that law enforcement officers reasonably believed that evidence would be imminently destroyed if they waited to obtain a warrant to seize the property. Affirmative conduct by the suspect is not required, but it is one circumstance in the totality-of-the-circumstances test that may show that the potential destruction of evidence was imminent.” Read opinion.
Dissenting: (Yeary, J):
This court should simply acknowledge that the facts demonstrate that the seizure of the phone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Read dissent.
Commentary:
The CCA’s holding makes sense, given that imminent destruction of evidence from an electronic personal device (like a cellphone, iPad, laptop, etc.) can occur in myriad ways without affirmative conduct by the suspect, e.g., the automatic deletion of Snapchats after viewing or after 24 hours (as in this case); the automatic deletion of emails moved to a “trash” folder after 30 days, the automatic overwriting of security surveillance video after a certain timeframe, etc. Thus, the CCA’s opinion properly shifts focus back to the totality of all of the circumstances as to why the police believed that they needed to seize personal property to secure it pending issuance of a search warrant—which may or may not include affirmative actions by the suspect—rather than hyper-focusing on only the suspect’s conduct. This case will be important and useful to trial and appellate prosecutors, since search-and-seizure issues are often heavily litigated pre-, during, and post-trial.
Attorney General Opinion
No. KP-0436 3/7/23
Issue:
Does a county have authority under Transportation Code Chapter 251 to abandon or rename a public road not included in the county maintenance system?
Conclusion:
“A court would likely conclude that [Transportation Code §]251.051(a)(1) authorizes a commissioners court to abandon a public road that has not been accepted into a county’s road maintenance system. Likewise, a court would likely conclude that §251.013(b) authorizes a commissioners court to name or rename a public road that has not been accepted into the county’s road maintenance system.” Read opinion.
Announcements
Baylor Law School is hosting the CCA and State Bar March 23-24
https://www.tdcaa.com/baylor-law-school-is-hosting-the-cca-and-state-bar-march-23-24/
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Oral Arguments
Baylor Law School
Jim Kronzer Appellate Advocacy Classroom & Courtroom (Room 127)
Thursday, March 23, 2023
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Criminal Law Update CLE hosted by the Criminal Justice Section of the State Bar of Texas
Baylor Law School
Jim Kronzer Appellate Advocacy Classroom & Courtroom (Room 127)
Friday, March 24, 2023
9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
See the CLE brochure attached and at https://statebaroftexassections.redpodium.com/cjs-law-student-mentoring-and-criminal-law-update
TDCAA Assistant Training Director
The Texas District and County Attorneys Association is seeking an Assistant Training Director. The Assistant Training Director (ATD) will be responsible for the creative development and production of TDCAA’s online training. The ATD will work under the supervision and direction of the Training Director. The ATD’s duties will include:
- under the direction of the Training Director and association leadership, developing and expanding the association’s online learning opportunities
- conducting needs assessments to evaluate and determine the online learning needs of prosecutors’ offices
- in conjunction with the Training Committee, developing the content of TDCAA online learning.
- planning and producing all association online learning programs
- investigating and developing varied modalities of online learning, including webinars, virtual training, and podcasts
- making initial speaker contacts for all TDCAA online learning offerings or supervising such contacts by other staff or course directors
- directing the preparation of all materials related to online learning initiatives and assisting in developing and editing seminar materials as needed
- supervising the meeting planners who assist in the production, web hosting, and credit reporting of all online learning initiatives
- evaluating the overall effectiveness of association online learning programming
- assisting the Training Director as necessary to produce association live training events.
Any applicant must be a licensed attorney in Texas for at least the past three years. Some travel will be required for live training events and production of online trainings. Some remote work is possible, but time will be required at TDCAA headquarters in Austin to accomplish needed tasks. The starting salary is $85,000, plus health care and retirement benefits.
Applicants should send a cover letter and current resume to Rob Kepple at [email protected].