U.S. Supreme Court

Bondi, et al. v. Vanderstok, et al.

Issue:

Does the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §921(a)) apply to weapon parts kits, also referred to as “ghost guns”?

Holding (Gorsuch, J.):

Yes. The GCA, which requires background checks for firearm sales and serial numbers on firearms, applies to weapon parts kits and is compatible with a rule (27 CFR §478.11–.12) adopted by the ATF that regulates weapon parts kits, such as ghost guns. The Court did not decide whether ATF’s regulations “may be lawfully applied to particular weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. Instead, the plaintiffs have pursued what the lower courts called a ’facial’ pre-enforcement challenge to the agency’s authority to regulate anyweapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers.” Read opinion (along with three concurring and two dissenting opinions).

Commentary:

Although 2^nd Amendment cases from the Court have been of interest lately, this is ultimately not a 2^ndAmendment decision. There is no reference to the Amendment or any of the Court’s recent 2^nd Amendment cases. This decision is purely an exercise in statutory construction and the proper construction of the related regulations. The plaintiffs in these cases sought to challenge the ATF’s ability to adopt any rule regulating weapon kits, frames, or receivers. That made the plaintiffs’ task much more difficult. What this decision means is that the requirements of the GCA (background checks, serial numbers, and the like) will generally apply to these kits, frames, and receivers. Anyone who wants to continue to challenge the regulation or statute will require the plaintiff to mount a challenge on a case-by-case basis.

Texas Courts of Appeals

Hultquist v. State

No. 14-24-0081-CR                       4/8/25

Issue:

Is the State required to present evidence of “retributive intent” for the offense of retaliation (Penal Code §36.06(a))?

Holding:

No. Not for offenses committed on or after Sept. 1, 1997, when the Legislature expanded the retaliation offense to include harm or threats of harm by unlawful acts in retaliation for or on account of the victim’s status, in addition to the victim’s service. The indictment in this case included allegations that the defendant threatened the victims in retaliation for or on account of their status as assistant district attorneys, and the Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant threatened to kill two assistant district attorneys on account of their status as public servants. Read opinion.

Commentary:

In this case, the defendant threatened to kill two prosecutors. That was sufficient to satisfy the wording of the current statute and the wording of the indictment charging the defendant with the offense. Judges and attorneys should disregard any older cases that required a showing of an intent to retaliate based upon something that the public servant did. Now a defendant can be charged with retaliating against a public servant based solely upon who the public servant is.

State v. Sanchez

No. 02-24-00254-CR                   4/3/25

Issue:

In a case involving outcry witness testimony, did the trial judge impermissibly grant the defendant a new trial after considering transcribed testimony of only some of the witnesses?

Holding:

Yes. “A trial court ‘cannot grant a new trial on mere sympathy, an inarticulate hunch, or simply because [it] personally believes that the defendant is innocent or ‘received a raw deal.’” The Court concluded that the trial judge should have considered the complete record and therefore did not conduct a proper harm analysis in considering the motion for new trial. Although the outcry witness’s testimony may not have been admissible under CCP Article 38.072, the SANE nurse’s testimony was admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule. Read opinion.

Commentary:

This should be an extremely helpful decision to show to a trial judge, urging the judge to consider all possible reasons that a particular piece of evidence or testimony should be admissible. This decision should also be very helpful to prosecutors in determining the proper way to argue a motion for new trial dealing with the admissibility of evidence. In granting the defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial judge focused on whether the victim’s statements to the SANE nurse qualified as “outcry” statements. However, in ruling on a motion for new trial in which a defendant is challenging the admissibility of evidence, a trial judge should consider all possible bases presented for admitting the evidence. The State raised the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception at the motion-for-new-trial stage. As pointed out in footnote 6 of the court’s opinion, that was timely. In ruling on a defendant’s motion for new trial, a trial judge should conduct essentially what amounts to a harm analysis—determining whether, because of the error, the defendant is really entitled to a new trial. In conducting this harm analysis, the trial judge also erred by failing to consider all the evidence in determining whether the defendant was harmed.

Attorney General Opinion Request

RQ-0591-KP                      3/27/25

Issue:

What is the scope of authority a juvenile probation officer has when a juvenile is taken into custody without a directive to apprehend or arrest warrant? Read opinion request. 

Requested by:

Michaela E. Kee, Bailey County Attorney