July 30, 2010

Texas Courts of Appeals

Garcia v. State – 4th COA

07/21/10 : Cite No. 04-09-00735-CR


For purposes of Ch. 64 DNA testing, does the "identity" at issue refer to the complainant’s or the perpetrator’s identity?


As other intermediate courts have held, the perpetrator’s identity. Read Opinion.


This is another example of how the law is abused by very guilty criminals sitting in prison who want to play the DNA lottery. Defendant killed and burned up four victims. He pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty and confessed. Yet, 18 years later, he gets to waste the court’s time by demanding testing of the remains of the bodies. Fortunately, the DNA law focuses on discovering the identity of the perpetrator, not the victim. Shouldn’t the defendant have to provide some explanation as to why he pleaded guilty and confessed before we suspend our disbelief and use state resources to test a theory of innocence that doesn’t even involve his identity?

Render v. State – 5th COA

07/23/10 : Cite No. 05-09-00528-CR

Issue 1:

Is the continuous sexual assault statute unconstitutional because it violates the state constitution’s unanimity clause or the federal Due Process Clause?

Issue 2:

Was the absence of a "not guilty" provision from the jury charge reversible error?

Holding 1:

No and no. The statute is not unconstitutional on these grounds. Read Opinion.

Holding 2:

Even if it was error, given the other charge instructions, evidence, jury notes, and arguments, it was harmless error.Read Opinion.


This opinion was originally not published. Strange, since it decides, for the first time in Texas, that the relatively new ongoing crime of continuous sexual abuse, which relieves the jury from having to all agree on the same acts of sexual abuse before convicting, does not violate the constitutional requirement of a unanimous verdict. Note: always a good idea to have a fresh set of eyes read a jury charge to catch the little things, like a missing not guilty verdict.

Ji v. State – 5th COA

07/23/10 : Cite Nos. 05-09-00659-CR & 05-09-00660-CR


Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant the right to represent himself at trial?


No. The defendant’s mental illness was severe enough to warrant the appointment of counsel. Read Opinion.


This opinion provides a very good description of the difference between incompetency to stand trial and incompetency to represent yourself in a trial. The trial court did a good job of using an appointed expert to support the ruling.


TDCAA is pleased to offer our members unique case summaries from
the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas
Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will
have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive
prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a
prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors,
their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community.
These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The
information contained in this email message may be privileged,
confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use,
printing, copying, disclosure, dissemination of or reliance upon this
communication by persons other than the intended recipient may be
subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please email comments,
problems, or questions to [email protected]. In addition, if you
would like to discuss the summaries with fellow prosecutors, look for
the thread in our criminal forum.