Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted appellant of possession of more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and, because of two enhancement allegations and the drug-free-zone allegation, assessed a sentence of seventy-five years in prison. Appellant appealed, contending that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to make an independent examination of the alleged methamphetamine. The court of appeals overruled this issue. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted one of appellant’s grounds for review: the ground asserting that the court of appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to inspect the alleged methamphetamine. That ground comprises two sub-issues: (1) whether a defendant charged with possession of a controlled substance has a right to inspection of the controlled substance by an independent expert; and, (2) whether the state is required to pay for an indigent defendant’s inspection of the controlled substance by an independent expert. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, while the trial court was required to permit a defendant in a controlled-substance case to have an independent expert analyze the controlled substance, the trial court was not required to appoint such an expert for an indigent defendant, absent a preliminary showing of a significant issue of fact. View "Ehake v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of the aggravated kidnapping of his girlfriend, Ashley Salas. On direct appeal, he complained that the trial court admitted certain text messages into evidence that Appellant claimed were not properly authenticated. The State introduced the text messages through Salas, who testified that she recognized Appellant’s phone number displayed on the text messages, that the text messages were from Appellant, and that Appellant even called her from that phone number at some point during the course of their text messaging back and forth. Relying upon the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in "Tienda v. Texas," (358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)), the Court of Appeals held that Salas’s testimony did not adequately serve to authenticate the text messages. Finding that the trial court erred by admitting the text messages and that their admission into evidence was not harmless, the court of appeals reversed Appellant’s conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the Tienda holding, and reversed. View "Butler v. Texas" on Justia Law

In April 2013, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder for the March 2012 death of Minnie Ray Sebolt. Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. Upon automatic appeal, appellant raised seven points of error. After giving careful consideration to each of appellant’s points of error, the Court of Criminal Appeals found them to be without merit. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence of death. View "Granger v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals overruled the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion. After the victim’s underwear and fingernail clippings were tested, the trial court heard testimony from experts regarding the DNA test results, and concluded that the results of the post-conviction DNA testing were not favorable to Appellant. On automatic appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellant argued: (1) the district court erred in applying a proof of innocence standard to its determination under Article 64.04, instead of determining whether, more likely than not, at least one juror would find that reasonable doubt existed in this case, if the new DNA evidence was available; (2) the district court erred in holding that no juror would harbor a reasonable doubt in this or any case involving a claimed confession and an unkept home, where testing showed that one or more people (not Appellant) left blood and DNA under the decedent’s long, blood-caked fingernails; and (3) the district court erred in excluding important forensic and other evidence not relating directly to DNA testing bearing on the strength of the new evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court. View "Raby v. Texas" on Justia Law

Applicant was convicted of both intoxication assault and felony DWI. These convictions arose from the same incident, a traffic accident on October 17, 2010 in which Charles Bundrant suffered serious bodily injury. The felony DWI count was based on the fact that applicant had two prior DWI convictions. Applicant filed a habeas application alleging, among other things, that conviction for both intoxication assault and felony DWI violated his double-jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments. After review, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that intoxication assault and felony DWI were not the same offense even thought they arose from the same transaction. Therefore, the Court denied applicant habeas relief. View "Benson v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Chad Murray was charged with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and was convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to one-year confinement in the county jail and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. His sentence of confinement was suspended, and Appellant was placed on community supervision for two years. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, for purposes of the DWI statute, he was operating a vehicle. The court of appeals agreed, reversed the judgment below, and rendered an acquittal. The State Prosecuting Attorney filed a petition for review. The sole question for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review was whether “a driver who is passed out behind the wheel of a running vehicle [is] ‘operating’ it for the purposes of DWI?” Disagreeing with the court of appeals' decision, the Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment. View "Murray v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant Eric Price of third-degree felony family-violence assault. Appellant pled true to the enhancement and habitual allegations, and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the offense of third-degree-felony family violence assault was both result-oriented and conduct-oriented, and that the trial court erred in failing to include language tying the culpable mental state to the nature of the conduct. Because domestic violence is a result-of conduct offense only, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Price v. Texas" on Justia Law

In 2011, a then-24-year-old appellant-probationer Steven Nelson entered NorthPointe Baptist Church in Arlington, assaulted and suffocated its pastor and assaulted its secretary. While there, appellant stole a laptop, a cellphone, the secretary's credit cards and car. Appellant was charged with capital murder by intentionally causing the pastor's death in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery. A jury found appellant guilty of capital murder and answered the special issues so that appellant was sentenced to death. Appellant raised fifteen points of error in this automatic appeal. Finding no error, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. View "Nelson v. Texas" on Justia Law

The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for review to decide whether the corpus delicti rule was satisfied in this case, and whether the rule continues to serve its intended purpose in this state’s jurisprudence. In late November of 2011, Detective Callahan of the White Settlement Police Department was assigned to investigate a report from Child Protective Services that Appellant had engaged in illicit sexual conduct with his then three-month-old daughter, "Madison." Appellant met Callahan and gave two confessions, the first verbal and the second written. Appellant was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under six years of age for molesting his daughter four times in a period of 27 days. At trial, the State’s computer forensics expert was unable to recover any evidence from Appellant’s computer or the memory card that was in his phone, including a picture Appellant said he took of himself molesting his daughter. According to the expert, Appellant used a computer program to irretrievably delete files and folders on his computer and to erase the contents of his memory card. As a result, no probative evidence could be retrieved from the computer or memory card. The jury convicted Appellant of all four counts and sentenced Appellant to life confinement on each count. On appeal, Appellant argued, in part, that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of three counts of the four counts with which he was charged by failing to corroborate his confessions as to those counts with independent evidence. After review, the Court decided that a strict application of the corpus delicti rule was unnecessary when a defendant confesses to multiple criminal offenses within a single criminal episode or course of conduct if the crimes confessed to are sufficiently proximate that the underlying policy reasons for the rule are not violated. As a result, the Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court. View "Miller v. Texas" on Justia Law

The State charged Donnie Kachel with indecency with a child by exposure. After initially denying his presence at the scene, Kachel admitted to changing clothes in the street outside the victim’s home, but claimed that he saw only an adult woman and requested a lesser-included instruction on indecent exposure. The judge denied the request, and the court of appeals affirmed. Because there was some evidence that Kachel exposed himself only to an adult, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remand the cause to the court of appeals for a harm analysis. View "Kachel v. Texas" on Justia Law