Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of four counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the outcry witness's testimony from a pre-trial hearing was admissible. The court held that a pre-trial hearing conducted under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.072 section 2(b)(2) was intended only to determine the reliability of the complainant's out-of-court statement. Therefore, defendant's opportunity for cross-examining the outcry witness at such a hearing was inadequate to allow the admission of the hearing testimony at trial. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded to that court for a harm analysis. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the course of committing a robbery, which was a capital offense. On direct appeal, defendant raised 56 points of error. Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court. View "Broadnax v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for the state-jail felony of debit card abuse. At issue was whether the terms "use" and "present" in the debit-card-abuse statute were mutually exclusive so that there was no overlap in the meaning of the words. Based on the ordinary meaning of the words as used in the statute, the court concluded that the statutory terms "use" and "present" could overlap in meaning, that a transaction need not be consummated to support a jury finding that a defendant used a debit card, and that the court of appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish debt card abuse. Because the court reinstated the trial court's judgment, the court concluded that defendant's petition regarding the reformation of the judgment was improvidently granted. View "Clinton v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder, specifically the intentional murder of two individuals during the same criminal transaction. On direct appeal, defendant raised nine points of error and the court found them to be without merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence of death. View "Devoe v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death and this was a direct appeal of the trial court's ruling on a motion filed in the 251st District Court of Randall County. In the course of resolving claims raised in the initial Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 application, defendant filed a "Motion for Post-Conviction Fingerprint and Blood Testing of the Interior of a Wallet." The court held that defendant's appeal was not permitted. Defendant did not cite, nor has the court found, any constitutional or statutory provision or any rule that would authorize the appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order. View "Holberg v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of indecency with a child. At issue was whether the "grooming" of children for sexual molestation was a legitimate subject of expert testimony. The court rejected defendant's claim that the record failed to show the legitimacy of "grooming" as a subject of expert testimony because the legitimacy of "grooming" as a subject of expert testimony had been established sufficiently to be judicially noticed. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Morris v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of codeine. The court's order granting review in the firearm case, PD-1708-08, was a clerical error and the petition for discretionary review in that case was dismissed as improvidently granted. The rest of the court's opinion dealt with the appeal of the codeine case, PD-1709-08, in which defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under Health and Safety Code Section 481.115, Possession of Substance in Penalty Group 1. The court held that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the elements of the offense for which defendant was tried. The court also held that defendant was tried for possession of Penalty Group 1 codeine and that the evidence presented at defendant's trial was insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. Therefore, the court reversed the decision and rendered a judgment of acquittal. View "Miles III v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At issue on appeal was whether a court's refusal to compel testimony from a defense witness based on her invocation of her 5th Amendment rights without a determination of a reasonable basis for "a real and substantial fear of prosecution" a violation of petitioner's rights to due process and due course of law. The court held that the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming defendant's conviction was correct because the trial court's inquiry into the witness' assertion of the privilege was sufficient. The court overruled its earlier opinion in Ross v. State and affirmed the judgment. View "Walters v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder by stabbing the victim with a knife 107 times in the course of attempting to commit or committing kidnapping or robbery. Based upon the jury's answers to the special punishment issues, the trial judge sentenced him to death. Defendant raised seven points of error on appeal but the court found no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence was affirmed. View "Gobert v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant testified to an alibi defense at the guilt phase of his aggravated robbery trial and then exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at the punishment phase. The prosecutor, in her final punishment argument, stated that defendant was not worthy of probation because he had not taken responsibility for the crime. The court held that, by testifying that he was not the person who committed the aggravated robbery, defendant expressly denied responsibility for the crime. Therefore, the State was entitled to comment on that denial of responsibility at either the guilt or punishment stage. The State did not comment on defendant's failure to testify at the punishment case. The court also found that the was case distinguishable from Swallow v. State and declined the State's invitation to overrule Swallow. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to that court to address defendant's remaining points of error. View "Randolph v. State" on Justia Law