Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Edward v. State
No. PD-0325-20 12/8/21
Issue:
Was evidence sufficient to prove a dating relationship as required by Tex. Fam. Code §71.0021(b) in a felony assault case when an officer testified that the victim referred to the defendant as her boyfriend, but that statement was not present on body camera footage?
Holding:
Yes. Although the body camera footage did not show the victim, who was unavailable for trial, referring to the defendant as her boyfriend, the officer never wavered in his testimony that at some point in the interaction, the victim called the defendant her boyfriend. Additionally, evidence: 1) of the victim’s injuries, 2) that the defendant was in the victim’s bedroom when police arrived at her apartment, and 3) that the victim signed a family-violence form provided by officers at the scene supported the officer’s testimony to prove a dating relationship. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is a helpful decision and a continued good reminder that circumstantial evidence is just as valid and probative as direct evidence. Section 71.0021(b) of the Family Code provides that the existence of a dating relationship “shall be determined based upon consideration of” three factors. The Court held that the State is not required to provide evidence in support of each factor. In other words, these three factors are not elements of the offense, but it is nevertheless a good idea to be familiar with these factors to prove a dating relationship and present as much evidence as you can in support of these factors.
Bell v. State
No. PD-1225-19 12/8/21
Issue:
If a punishment-phase jury charge incorrectly tracks the language in the habitual-offender statute (Penal Code §12.42(d)) by misstating the sequencing requirement (that the second prior felony conviction must have been committed after the first prior felony conviction became final), should the error be treated as an illegal sentence?
Holding:
No. As the Court reasoned in Niles v. State, 555 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), failing to instruct the jury on one element of an offense or failing to submit a sentencing issue to the jury is not structural error and does not render a sentence illegal. Instead, the error should be treated as a jury-charge error subject to harm analysis. Although the error in this case was distinguishable from Niles, it was not as egregious and should not be treated as an illegal sentence. Because the court of appeals had not yet conducted a harm analysis, the Court remanded the case. Read opinion.
Concurrence (Slaughter, J., joined by Yeary, J.):
This case involves erroneous wording only in the punishment enhancement charge (a non-constitutional error) as opposed to the entire omission of a statutory element in violation of a defendant’s Fifth and Six Amendment rights. Therefore, the appropriate harm analysis standard is “some harm or egregious harm” under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) rather than “harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is probably going to be a decision of interest only to post-conviction prosecutors. The Court did not conduct a harm analysis but instead remanded the case back to the court of appeals to conduct the appropriate harm analysis. Based on both the majority and concurring opinions, the appropriate harm analysis in this case should be under Almanza. The dispute between the two opinions center on the importance of Niles v. State in determining what kind of error is involved in this case. The bottom line is that the error involved in this case was not illegal-sentence error. Oh, and don’t go around improperly sequencing a defendant’s prior convictions that have to be properly sequenced.
Texas Courts of Appeals
Clark v. State
No. 07-21-00116-CR 12/2/21
Issue:
Was fingerprint evidence found on a bottle smelling like gasoline at the scene of an arson sufficient to prove a defendant’s identity and guilt?
Holding:
Yes. Fingerprint evidence alone may not be sufficient to prove a defendant’s guilt in some instances. However, the court held circumstantial evidence in this case showed the evidence was sufficient when the defendant did not have permission to be in the home, was caught admitting in a jail call that he “didn’t go in there without no gloves on,” and indicated the bottle was plastic before that fact was released to the public. Read opinion.
Commentary:
There was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence showing that the defendant must have been the person inside the victim’s home and must have been the person who committed the arson. The court does a good job detailing all of that evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt, and showing why defensive evidence could have been properly rejected by the jury.
Chambers v. State
No. 14-20-00754-CR 12/2/21
Issue:
Does a court of appeals have jurisdiction to accept an appeal from a municipal court offense when an opinion was issued without an order or judgment?
Holding:
No. Without a judgment or other appealable order, a court of appeals has no jurisdiction to accept an appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed. Read opinion.
Commentary:
For a party to appeal in Texas, there must be an appealable order or judgment. There really are no exceptions to that rule, from a death penalty case down to, well, a traffic violation first brought in a municipal court. The issue here is whether the opinion issued by the county court on appeal was an appealable order for the court of appeals. Since there is a dissenting opinion, it is possible the case will be reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. But this decision will only impact those cases that get appealed to county court before making their way to a court of appeals.