Texas Courts of Appeals

Hance v. State

No. 02-19-00237-CR               2/27/25

Issue:

What is the standard of harm for violation of Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 39.14 and 39.15: the non-constitutional harm standard for statutory error or the constitutional harm standard for federal due-process error?

Holding:

While the Court did not directly answer the question, it found that the State’s failure to promptly turn over evidence on a laptop computer “is reversible even under the non-constitutional harm standard applicable to statutory Michael Morton violations.” In its 144-page opinion, the Court noted that no Texas court has decided what harm analysis applies when the State violates Art. 39.15(d) and concluded that while the laptop and its contents may not have been material for Brady purposes, “they are clearly material—‘relevant’—under the Michael Morton Act.” Read opinion.

Commentary:

If you’re looking for a definitive answer as to which harm standard (the more stringent standard of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a) for constitutional errors, or the more lenient standard of TRAP 44.2(b) for “other errors”—i.e., statutory errors) applies when a violation of Article 39.14/the Michael Morton Act occurs, you won’t find it here. Instead, the appellate court dances around that question by ultimately concluding that the defendant was harmed under either standard. In doing so, the court finds that, despite a statutory violation occurring, and despite finding “significant—or even overwhelming evidence of guilt supporting a conviction[,]” the nature of the discovery-violation error impacted the trial’s “fundamental fairness” and was, thus, harmful. This is tantamount to a holding that a statutory discovery error should be evaluated for constitutional harm under Rule 44.2(a)—even if the court would not specifically say so. Further, given that the court found this error harmful despite what it acknowledged as “substantial and compelling probative direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt[,]” this holding is also an implicit statement that a statutory discovery error such as this may always be harmful—which is troubling because it means that we are wading into presumed-harm territory. Hopefully the Court of Criminal Appeals will review this decision and provide clearer (or at least more definitive) guidance on this issue.

Staley v. State

No. 02-23-00053-CR               3/6/25

Issue:

Is an officer’s statement in a search warrant affidavit sufficient to justify a search of electronic devices when it states (without including specific facts to back up his assertions) that he believes electronic devices containing evidence will be found in the suspect’s home, reciting only “training and experience” in making statements about storing, syncing, searching, and analyzing digital evidence?

Holding:

No. The affidavit did not allege any factual connection—a nexus—between the capital murder under investigation and any of the defendant’s electronic devices. “Notably absent is any averment that evidence of, pointing to, or somehow connected with the suspected offense might be found on or within any of Staley’s electronic devices; nor does the affiant propose that ‘based on the foregoing,’ probable cause exists to seize or search the devices. Nothing more is said, really, than that computers, etc., were probably in Staley’s house—an unremarkable statement in late-2010s America but a free-floating assertion altogether unconnected to the suspected crime.” The Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Read opinion.

Concurrence (Walker, J.):

“The boilerplate language in the affidavit made available to the magistrate in this case is strikingly similar to the one in Baldwin—a case in which our state’s highest criminal court also had no choice but to overturn a murder conviction. Simply put, the instant affidavit did not delineate any specific evidence that tied Staley to the offense for which he was suspected and later charged. Instead, the affiant merely listed conclusions about the use of electronic media and how those items might generally contain evidence of crimes. … Even though we are bound to follow precedent in holding that the search warrant affidavit was inadequate in this matter, it does not mean that we lack sympathy for the victim and his loved ones. On the contrary, my heart breaks because of what happened to this innocent young child. … I believe that I truly speak for all of us on the court in saying that we are very sorry for the victim and his family.” Read concurrence.

Commentary:

Since Baldwin, the pertinent question that the affiant must answer in a search warrant affidavit is why? That is, whydoes the affiant believe that the object/place to be searched contains evidence of a crime? It is not enough that the affiant believes, according to his training and experience, that evidence of crimes is often found on defendants’ electronically devices. Instead, the affiant must establish why in this instance, under these facts, he reasonably believes that evidence of a crime may be found on the defendant’s electronic devices. Stated another way, the affiant must connect all of the dots and show all his work for the search warrant to withstand both initial scrutiny by the reviewing magistrate/judge who signs off on the warrant, as well by an appellate court, which will review the search warrant affidavit with a fine-toothed comb to see if the recited details establish the requisite nexus between the object/place to be searched and suspected criminal activity.

State’s Appellate Manual

Thanks to grant funding from the Court of Criminal Appeals, TDCAA will be shipping a free copy of the new edition of the State’s Appellate Manual to every prosecutor office in Texas. Many thanks to members of TDCAA’s Publications Committee who assisted in updating the chapters (Jessica Caird, Alan Curry, Andrew Fletcher, Heather Hudson, and Patricia McLean from the Harris County DA’s Office; Emily Johnson-Liu from the State Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; and Britt Houston Lindsey from the Taylor County Criminal DA’s Office). Additional copies of the Appellate Manual can be purchased on the TDCAA website here.