Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Irsan v. State

No. AP-77,082             2/26/25

Issue:

What is the standard of review to be used when, after the defendant engages in inappropriate courtroom behavior, the defendant asks the trial judge to inquire into the jurors’ ability to remain fair and impartial?

Holding:

Abuse of discretion. In this capital murder–death penalty case, the defendant killed his son-in-law and one of his daughter’s friends during different criminal transactions but pursuant to the same scheme and course of conduct: to “clean the stain on his honor” because his daughter had married a man outside her father’s religion. Near the end of the guilt phase of trial, four jurors approached the bailiff individually and told him that they were concerned for the prosecutor’s safety because the defendant had given the prosecutor a “look of nastiness” and “made a snapping finger” motion as if “he is breaking something.” The defendant moved for mistrial, arguing that the jurors could not be fair and impartial, but the trial judge refused to question the four jurors about what they saw, concluding that because the jurors had told the bailiff what they had seen privately, the judge saw no need to grant a mistrial. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the judge had not abused her discretion in this ruling. “It is not uncommon for defendants to express frustration at questions or answers with which they take umbrage. Were we to hold that outbursts borne out of frustration or anger always call for a mistrial or an examination of the jurors, even when the trial judge in her discretion concludes otherwise, we would create an incentive for litigants to profit from their own misbehavior. We have declined to create that kind of incentive before, and we decline to do so now.” Read opinion.

Commentary:

In the midst of all of the other claims raised by the defendant, the claim presented above should be helpful for prosecutors who are faced with a defendant who is unruly in the courtroom. There is no need to question the jurors about the defendant’s misconduct, and there is certainly no need for a mistrial because of the defendant’s misconduct. This defendant testified at both the guilt/innocence and the punishment stage, and he took little or no responsibility for his actions. The defendant offered up his religion as the reason for much of his conduct, but ultimately the defendant was in reality a despicable domestic violence defendant, killing two of his sons-in-law (one presented at the punishment stage) and one of his surviving daughter’s best friends. As the 66-page opinion demonstrates, the defendant engaged in a relentless course of assault, fraud, harassment, and stalking that terrorized his family and others. The surviving daughter was able to escape the defendant, but still suffered the loss of her husband and best friend. She became the State’s star witness. Hopefully this decision will offer some small portion of justice for her.

Texas Attorney General Opinion

KP-0484          2/26/25

Issue:

Does the Texas Ethics Commission have authority under Government Code §571.1242(g) to toll its jurisdictional deadline to take specified action on a complaint within 120 days after receiving a response to the complaint for circumstances other than litigation?

Conclusion:

Government Code §571.1242(g) unambiguously imposes a jurisdictional deadline by which the Texas Ethics Commission must take specified action on a complaint. Section 571.1244(2), on the other hand, concerns procedures for preliminary reviews and unambiguously pertains to procedural deadlines—not the Commission’s jurisdiction. This is likewise confirmed by the general objectives of the Commission’s enabling framework, which aims to streamline the complaint process such that the Commission’s failure to timely resolve claims during preliminary review results in a loss of jurisdiction over the underlying allegations. As such, the Commission may not toll its jurisdictional deadline outside of litigation. Rules that provide otherwise are facially invalid insofar as they conflict with both the plain text and general objectives of the Commission’s enabling framework. Read opinion.

Requested by:

Senator Brian Birdwell, Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources

A Helping Hand

We want to let our membership know of a fellow member in need.

Frio County Attorney’s Office Investigator Reynaldo (Rey) Trevino and his family recently lost their home to a catastrophic fire, leaving them with nothing—furniture, clothing, personal belongings, and daily necessities all gone, along with equipment required for Rey to perform his duties.

Several TDCAA investigators have already come together to support Rey and his family, including through contributions to a GoFundMe campaign set up to benefit the Trevino family. They are in urgent need of assistance with basic necessities such as food, clothing, household items, and work-related equipment. Any support, whether financial or otherwise, would be immensely appreciated as they rebuild their lives.

For those who wish to contribute, donations can be made through the following link: GoFundMe: Help Investigator Reynaldo Trevino & Family.