Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
King v. State
No. PD-1003-20 2/22/23
Issue:
Did a trial judge violate the defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause or Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 28.01, §1 when the judge held a pretrial hearing on the defendant’s motion in limine regarding punishment evidence without the defendant present?
Holding:
No. The judge’s actions did not violate Due Process because the defendant’s “presence did not bear a reasonably substantial relationship to defending the hearing, and the Article 28.01 violation was harmless, because [the defendant’s] absence did not substantially affect the jury’s decision.” Read opinion.
Concurrence (Newell, J., joined by Hervey and Walker, JJ.):
The defendant “primarily argues before this Court that this is the rare case in which it is impossible for a reviewing court to conduct a meaningful harm analysis because the record is silent regarding a portion of that pre-trial conference” relying on VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “Rather than analyze whether error occurred in this case or even analyze the proper standard of harm, I would simply distinguish VanNortrick and affirm the court of appeals.” Read concurrence.
Commentary:
The question of error in this case was not resolved by a majority of the judges. A majority of the judges found any error to be harmless. As such, this case may have interest only to prosecutors who handle direct appeals. If prosecutors wish to understand the controlling law, Presiding Judge Keller’s plurality opinion presents that case law well. The decision did not change anything with regard to pre-existing law. The bottom line for trial prosecutors is that, without a good reason, every effort should be made to make sure that a defendant is present at every proceeding. That does not mean that the conviction will be reversed, but it can add uncertainty to any conviction until the issue is resolved.
Texas Courts of Appeals
Huerta v. State
No. 07-22-00068-CR 2/16/23
Issue:
Does a defendant’s stipulation to a pretrial amendment and the trial judge’s docket entry granting the motion to amend meet the amendment requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 28.10 and 28.11 for “documentation in the record”?
Holding:
Yes. Although the trial judge did not immediately file the order granting the amendment with the clerk, the court noted that the Dallas Court of Appeals has previously held that an order granting an amended indictment was proper when the judge approved the indictment before trial began but did not file it with the clerk until the day the verdict was rendered. “Much like the case currently before this Court, [the defendant] did not object to the amendment, entered a plea to the amended indictment and the amendment was read in open court to the jury.” Failure to immediately file the amendment with the clerk did not make it invalid. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case underscores why it is necessary for a defendant to object if he really wants to complain about something on appeal. Raising a claim for the first time on appeal is rarely successful. The change in the murder indictment in this case made the manner and means of causing death more clear and more grammatically correct. This defendant could not have been surprised. In the future, prosecutors should ensure that amendments to indictments have been finalized.