Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal but his sentence was later vacated by a federal district court. A new punishment hearing was held and defendant was again sentenced to death. Direct appeal was automatic and defendant raised five issues: in his first issue, defendant claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the trial judge granted his motion to quash the indictment; in issues two and three, defendant complained about matters related to parole eligibility; in issue three, defendant contended, in the alternative, that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury an instruction that it could not consider parole after the jury sent out a note inquiring whether a life sentence in this case would be with or without parole; in issue four, defendant contended that the trial judge erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror; in issue five, defendant contended that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding defendant's future dangerousness. The court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. View "Brewer v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of driving while intoxicated after the trial judge denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant for blood. The court of appeals held that the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe that evidence of intoxication would be found in defendant's blood even though the officer did not specify when, on the day before he obtained the search warrant, he had stopped defendant. At issue was whether a search-warrant affidavit for blood must contain the time the DWI arrestee was stopped. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances standard set out in State v. Jordan, the affidavit in this case was not sufficient to show probable cause because there could have been a twenty-five-hour gap between the time the officer first stopped defendant and the time he obtained a search warrant for blood. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Crider v. State" on Justia Law

This case arose when a fight broke out between the Kirby Block gang and the Manett Boys gang. Defendant was indicted and went to trial for murder. The jury charge contained instructions on defense of a third person and defendant objected to the instruction as not consistent with the current self-defense statute. The jury charge did not contain any instructions regarding a presumption of reasonable conduct in the self-defense context, nor did defendant request any such instructions. Defendant was convicted and appealed. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in failing to delete the complained-of references to a duty to retreat and that the trial judge erred in failing to include instructions regarding a presumption of reasonable conduct. Defendant subsequently claimed that the court of appeals erred in disposing of his complaints with respect to the defense-of-others instructions in the jury charge. The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the italicized portions of the jury charge because those instructions were not authorized by statute and they constituted comments on the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the court of appeals' analysis on whether defendant was entitled to a presumption charge was incomplete. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Morales v. State" on Justia Law