Texas Courts of Appeals
Jackson v. State
No. 14-21-00533-CR 05/25/23
Issue:
Can the location of a defendant’s vehicle provide evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to promote or assist in the commission of a robbery?
Holding:
Yes. The jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant, as the driver of the vehicle, was responsible for situating the vehicle near the victim’s vehicle with the goal of making the burglary easier to accomplish by limiting the distance the other man would have to travel before breaking into the car, limiting the burglar’s visibility to the public, and expediting a plan to promptly get away. Read opinion.
Concurrence (Spain, J):
The concurrence wrote separately to distinguish Draper v. State, 681 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. ref’d), which was based on former Penal Code Article 66. “The current Penal Code, which was in effect when Draper was handed down, explicitly abolished the traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals. Currently a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both” under Penal Code §7.01(a). Read Concurrence.
Commentary:
The sufficiency of the evidence is not based solely upon the manner in which the suspect vehicle (that the defendant was driving) was parked. While the suspect vehicle was parked next to the victim’s vehicle, witnesses observed that the victim’s vehicle had been broken into, with glass on the ground beside it. A burglar then got out of the victim’s vehicle and got into the suspect vehicle, which then drove away. The suspect vehicle stopped briefly to allow an occupant to dispense with some of the stolen property. For a more complete summary of the important facts, look at pages 14-15 of the State’s brief. The State did a great job, and the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction.
Turpen v. State
No. 05-22-00284-CR 05/26/23
Issue:
Did the court err in overruling the defendant’s Rule 403 objection for two witnesses to testify about an extraneous offense he committed against them 20 years ago?
Holding:
No. Although remoteness in time can lessen the probative value of extraneous-offense evidence, remoteness alone does not require exclusion. It is one aspect of balancing probative value, which itself is only one factor within the Rule 403 inquiry. The evidence in question was compelling propensity evidence and also effective to rebut the defendant’s argument that the victim imagined the abuse due to her mental health issues. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is a good step-by-step breakdown of how to conduct an analysis regarding the admissibility of evidence under Rule 403. Prosecutors seeking to admit child molestation extraneous offenses under Article 38.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should always keep Rule 403 in mind. Read this decision and follow the cases it cites. In this case, one of the key factors in the court’s analysis was the similarity between the extraneous offenses and the charged offense, which is often the case in child molestation cases. Overall, this is a very helpful, straightforward decision.
Tates v. State
No. 13-20-00280-CR 05/ 25/23
Issue:
Did the court err in conducting the punishment phase of trial by videoconference?
Holding:
Yes. A sentence rendered outside the defendant’s presence is not authorized by law, under Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 33.03, 42.03, and 42.14. See Lira v. State, No. PD-0212-21 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2023). “[T]he right to be present at sentencing implicates the legality of a sentence and is not forfeited by a failure to object at trial.” Because the court resolved the issue on statutory grounds, it did not need to reach the defendant’s challenges under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution Article I, §§10 & 19. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The defense did not object to the defendant’s absence from the punishment stage, which occurred during the heat of the COVID-19 pandemic (the guilt/innocence stage apparently occurred just before the pandemic). The Court of Criminal Appeals may want to review the preservation issue as well as the merits of the issue regarding the defendant’s presence. This appears to be an issue of great importance to the court, as indicated by the Lira decision. The court is also reviewing another similar decision in Hughes v. State, 651 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, pet. granted). Stay tuned.
Texas Attorney General Opinion Request
RQ-0509-KP 5/11/23
Issue:
May the District Attorney’s Office, located in a stand-alone building with no other courts or court offices, use money in the courthouse security fund under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 102.017(d) to purchase bulletproof glass?
Requested by:
Renee Mueller, Washington County Attorney
TEXAS DISTRICT AND COUNTY ATTORNEYS FOUNDATION
2023 Application for the Mike Hinton Memorial Scholarship
Name: ______________________________________ Bar number:_______________________
Title/Position: __________________________ DA’s Office:__________________
Address: ____________________________________
Phone number: _______________________________ Year Licensed: __________
Email: ____________________________________
Are you a paid member of TDCAA? yes no
Last TDCAA Annual Conference attended (year): ___________
In the absence of scholarship aid, do you anticipate
that your employer will pay the cost of your attendance,
either in whole or in part? yes no
_________________________________________
Signature
_________________________________
Date
Email completed applications to [email protected].
For questions, please contact Rob Kepple ([email protected]) or Kenda Culpepper ([email protected]).
Applications are due May 26, 2023, by 5:00 p.m.
*IMPORTANT:
1. Applications must be complete at the time of submission. Incomplete applications
will not be considered.
2. Scholarships shall be used for 2023 Annual Conference registration costs.
3. Scholarship recipients must be current and paid members of TDCAA.