Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted by a jury of family-violence assault on the victim, who was about thirty-eight weeks pregnant with his child at the time of the assault. The State Prosecuting Attorney (SPA) subsequently argued that this court should reassess the appropriateness of certain factors set forth in Harris v. State in assessing the harmfulness of constitutional error. In addressing the first Harris factor, the court held that it failed to see how purporting to identify the State as a "source" of constitutional error revealed anything about whether, or to what extent, the error could have contributed to the conviction. The court also held that it failed to see the utility of the last Harris factor, namely, whether declaring the error harmless would encourage repeat performances by the State. The court held, however, that the remaining Harris factors - the nature of the error, whether it was emphasized by the State, the probable implications of the error, and the weight the jury would likely have assigned to it in the course of deliberations - remained as viable considerations in deciding whether trial error of a constitutional dimension contributed to the conviction or punishment in many cases. Under these circumstances, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any residual prejudice emanating from the prosecutor's illegitimate guilt-phase remark that called the jury's attention to appellant's lack of in-court remorse contributed not at all to its assessment of his punishment. View "Snowden v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant sought habeas corpus relief, alleging that, because he had never been convicted of a sex offense, he was entitled to the requisite due process procedures when the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division (TDCJ) placed sex-offender conditions on his parole. The court held that no process was due to defendant because his computerized criminal history (CCH) file, maintained by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), and which was corroborated by police agency records, established that defendant had prior sex-offense convictions from Illinois that qualified under Texas's sex-offender registration law. Therefore, the court denied relief. View "Ex Parte Warren" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for possession of more than five but less than fifty pounds of marijuana and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. At issue was whether Brady was applicable when the State failed to disclose to appellant the portion of a videotape containing exculpatory statements he made to police. The court held that because the audio portion of the videotape was favorable evidence that would be material to appellant's case and the State failed to disclose such evidence to appellant, the State violated appellant's constitutional right as expressed in Brady. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. View "Pena v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in December of 1995 of capital murder and subsequently, the trial court held a new punishment hearing in May 2009. Based on the jury's answers to the special issues, the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. On appeal, appellant raised five points of error. The court held that, so long as the federal district court's order set aside or invalidated the sentence, Article 44.29(c) authorized the trial court's action. The court also held that because appellant had not shown that the trial court improperly denied his challenges to at least two venirepersons, he could not show reversible error. Therefore, the court need not address appellant's third point of error regarding another venireperson. The court overruled appellant's fourth point of error that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to declare the 12-10 Rule unconstitutional. The court finally held that appellant's final point of error regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty was not ripe for review. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Gonzales v. State" on Justia Law

Four police officers came to defendant's welding shop looking for a person wanted in another county. Defendant gave the officers consent to search for that person. The officers, over defendant's objection, ended up searching a van on his property and finding drugs in it. The trial judge granted defendant's motion to suppress because he found that the search of the van exceeded the scope of defendant's consent. The court of appeals, over a dissent, affirmed. The court held that because it agreed that the resolution of the case turned on the scope of defendant's consent, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and that of the court of appeals. View "State v. Weaver" on Justia Law