Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the trial judge denied his motion to suppress methamphetamine found during a traffic stop, defendant pled guilty to its possession pursuant to a plea bargain. He then appealed the trial judge's suppression ruling. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to continue to detain defendant until a drug dog was brought to the scene. The court also declined to address what it called a "cross-appeal" because the State failed to file its own notice of appeal. The court held that the State need not file its own notice of appeal when it raised a cross-point concerning a ruling on a question of law under Article 44.01(c). View "Pfeiffer v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant guilty of arson for the burning of an insured and mortgaged vehicle. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and one day. The First Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the court of appeals erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient where the jury was able to assess the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses who testified at trial; the court of appeals incorrectly applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard when considering the circumstantial evidence supporting defendant's conviction and improperly employed a "divide-and-conquer" approach; and the court of appeals improperly acted as a thirteenth juror when it speculated and focused on the existence of a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Merritt v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three different offenses related to the possession of various items that could be associated with drug trafficking. In a motion to suppress the results of the search, defendant alleged that the supporting affidavit "fails to show that the act or event upon which probable cause is based occurred within a reasonable time prior to making the affidavit." The court held that the search-warrant affidavit in this case was imprecise as to the timing of the events it described. Nevertheless, the affidavit sufficiently supported the issuance of the search warrant, primarily because it suggested a continuing criminal investigation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

Immediately before the voir dire commenced at his trial, defendant requested that he be permitted to ask the members of the venire panel whether they understood that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt constituted a level of confidence under the law that was higher than both the preponderance of the evidence and the clear and convincing evidence standards. When the trial court denied his request, defendant objected that he was thereby denied the right to ask a "proper" question during voir dire, depriving him of the ability to intelligently exercise challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. The State contended that error in denying defendant the ability to ask a proper question was harmless on the particular facts of this case. The court held that this type of error was indeed subject to harm analysis, but defendant had not briefed the question, and the State did not convince the court that the error was so plainly harmless that the court should conduct that review for the first time on discretionary review in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for various counts of aggravated assault. At issue was whether a variance between the allegations in the charging instrument and the proof at trial rendered the evidence legally insufficient to support the conviction. Because the variance in this case involved a non-statutory allegation that did not affect the "allowable unit of prosecution," the variance could not render the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the offense of theft of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000. The Sixth Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support defendant's conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. The State, viewing the Court of Appeals' opinion as conflicting with the opinions of the court as well as the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed a petition for discretionary review. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant authorized the transfer of title of automobiles knowing that he would be unable or unwilling to satisfy the issued drafts. Therefore, the court agreed with the State that the Court of Appeals erred in its sufficiency analysis, and reversed that court's decision and reinstated defendant's conviction. View "Wirth v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in excluding four members of his family from the courtroom during jury selection. The court held that the trial court's findings were insufficiently "concrete," both with respect to jury-panel contamination and to courtroom security, to justify closure. Nor did the trial court take into consideration all reasonable available alternatives. Accordingly, under the exacting standards of Presley v. Georgia and Waller v. Georgia, the court reversed the judgments of the court of appeals and the trial court, remanding for a new trial. View "Steadman v. Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Defendant prepared an "Abatement" document that "simulated a summons, judgment or other court process" under section 32.48. The court held that the lower court thoroughly analyzed the facts of the case and properly determined that the Abatement simulated legal process and defendant intended to cause Helen Jean Coleman to submit to the authority of the document. Furthermore, it would be reasonable for Coleman to believe that the Abatement was a legal document. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Runningwolf v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the constitutional county judge erred in appointing a local municipal-court judge to preside in her place over defendant's motion to suppress hearing and that she should have granted his later request that she conduct another suppression hearing. The court held that it did not matter whether the municipal-court judge's orders denying defendant's motions to suppress were void because defendant adequately preserved his complaint. View "Lackey v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter, made an affirmative finding that he used a deadly weapon, and assessed his punishment at 20 years in prison. When subsequent DNA testing revealed that the biological material on the knife did not belong to the victim, the convicting court purported to grant defendant a new trial. The State appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. The court held that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction to order a new trial on the basis of its Article 64.04 finding and that the court of appeals should not have addressed the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals' holding. View "State v. Holloway, II" on Justia Law