Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. McGuire
No. PD-0984-19 2/21/24
Issue:
Can a peace officer legally arrest a suspect without a warrant for killing another person while driving intoxicated, even though the collision did not occur in the officer’s presence?
Holding:
Yes. Code of Criminal Procedure 14.03(a)(1) “has been interpreted to allow any peace officer to arrest a person found in a ‘suspicious place’ and the circumstances of the case reasonably show that the person is guilty of a felony or breach of the peace.” Without making a determination of whether the State showing exigency was “absolutely” required to make a warrantless arrest under Article 14.03(a)(1), the Court found exigent circumstances existed in this case. Read opinion.
Concurrence (Keel, J.):
“We granted review to decide whether exigency is needed to justify a warrantless arrest under Article 14.03(a)(1). Neither its text nor caselaw imposes an exigency requirement, and we should say so.” Read concurrence.
Commentary:
The first thing to know about this case is that Judge Richardson’s opinion for the court is a plurality opinion—joined by only three other judges. Judge Richardson’s opinion did not find that the State is required to prove exigent circumstances to support a warrantless arrest under Art. 14.03(a)(1). His opinion only found that exigent circumstances existed in this case and that, therefore, there was no need at this time to decide whether exigent circumstances are required for a warrantless arrest under Art. 14.03(a)(1). Judge Keel’s concurring opinion—joined in by three other judges—makes a short but compelling argument that exigent circumstances are not required for an officer to make a warrantless arrest under Art. 14.03(a)(1). A majority of the court certainly concluded that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant. A majority of the court also certainly concluded that the gas station, where the defendant was arrested and which was close to the scene of the accident, was a suspicious place. Prosecutors will have to wait for another case to again make the argument that Art. 14.03(a)(1) does not require exigent circumstances.
Texas Courts of Appeals
Nguyen v. State
No. 14-23-00126-CR 2/15/24
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present evidence of the defendant’s actions after a felony murder was committed?
Holding:
No. The evidence was admissible under Rules 404 and 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. The Court found the evidence could be admissible under the “another purpose” list found in Rule 404(b). The Court further found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence after applying the “probative v. prejudicial” balancing test of Rule 403. Read opinion.
Commentary:
After the defendant committed the charged offense by stealing the victim’s tow truck and then running over and killing the victim, the defendant collided with another vehicle, fled the scene, and evaded capture by the police. At trial, the State argued that the subsequent extraneous offenses—which were committed immediately after the charged felony murder—were admissible as same transaction contextual evidence. However, a trial court’s ruling can be upheld for a different reason on appeal if it is supported by the facts and the law. As argued by the State on appeal, the court of appeals upheld the admissibility of the extraneous offenses to rebut the defendant’s defensive theory that the charged felony murder was in fact an accident. The court’s opinion contains a good discussion of the law under Rules 404 and 403 of the Rules of Evidence.
Debottis v. State
No. 14-22-00884-CR 2/15/24
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error when admitting (1) the defendant’s post-Miranda statements as well as (2) a toxicology report from the defendant’s medical records?
Holding:
No.
(1) The Court presumed that the testimony and evidence offered after the defendant invoked her right to remain silent were an impermissible comment and erroneously admitted. Because of the constitutional implications, the standard used for review presumes harmful error unless it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. Here, the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the error, if any, did not contribute to the jury’s assessment of punishment.
(2) The defendant alleged that the toxicology report from the defendant’s medical records contained hearsay within hearsay. The Court found the medical records were accompanied by a business record affidavit and fell within the hearsay exception contained in Rule 803(6) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. The Court further held “that the blood test performed at the hospital by hospital staff was conducted for medical diagnosis or treatment, and the test results were admissible under Rule 803(4).” Read opinion.
Dissent (Spain, J.):
“Here the judgment rendered by the trial court does not accurately reflect what happened in open court. The written judgment reflects that the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for 15 years for each of two counts, to run consecutively. In contrast, the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence included punishment of a single sentence of 15 years.” Read dissent.
Commentary:
The State properly argued that the defendant’s post-Miranda-warning conduct was admissible because it was not the result of “interrogation” for the purposes of Miranda (see page 4 of the majority opinion). However, the court of appeals decided to conduct a harm analysis instead. As such, this portion of the court’s opinion may be of interest only to appellate prosecutors. With regard to the admissibility of the toxicology report, the State did a good job of ensuring that the report could be deemed a statement made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment (see page 13 of the majority opinion).
Texas Attorney General Opinion Requests
RQ-0532-KP 2/15/24
Issue:
What is the scope of obligations imposed by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 39.14 on the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney to obtain and disclose confidential information held by Tarrant County Juvenile Services? Read request for opinion.
Requested by:
Phil Sorrells, Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney
Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor
The Texas District and County Attorneys Association is pleased to announce the creation of a new position: Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor (DVRP). Patterned after the successful Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor position (which provides training and support for prosecutors handling intoxicated driving cases), the DVRP will be responsible for training and technical assistance to Texas prosecutors and law enforcement personnel around the state. For more information, see the job posting here.
2024 Penal Code Changes
In its 3rd Special Session of 2023, the 88th Legislature passed SB 4, “relating to the punishment for certain criminal conduct involving the smuggling of persons or the operation of a stash house; increasing criminal penalties,” which amended 10 statutes in the Texas Penal Code and enacted one new statute, effective 2/6/24. The changes to those 11 statutes are included in the PDF posted here. The changes will also be incorporated into the next edition of TDCAA’s code books in summer 2025, along with any other changes made in the 89th Session. Find the free PDF here. Note that additional changes were made by a second SB 4 in the 88th Legislature in the 4th Special Session of 2023. These changes to the CCP and Penal Code, among other codes, take effect on March 5, 2024 and will be posted on TDCAA’s website before the effective date.
Announcement
The National Computer Forensics Institute is offering two different courses for prosecutors. The five-day courses focus on digital evidence, computer forensics, and social networks for state and local prosecutors. All costs associated with the course (including travel) are covered by the United States Secret Service. The dates for the courses are below and the deadline to apply is today, February 23, 2024.
Course Dates for Digital Evidence for Prosecutors (DEP):
June 24-28, 2024
July 15-19, 2024
August 19-23, 2024
September 23-27, 2024
The application is accessed by clicking this secure link: https://forms.office.com/r/WQJJqrzZ1q
Course Dates for Advanced Digital Evidence for Prosecutors (ADEP):
June 10-14, 2024
September 9-13, 2024
The application is accessed by clicking this secure link: https://forms.office.com/r/8n8n33zHPd
More information about the NCFI can be found at: