Courts of Appeals
Cameron v. State
No. 04-19-00245-CR 6/30/21
Issues:
Was a defendant entitled to be tried under the criminal solicitation statute under the doctrine of in pari materia instead of being charged with murder and the law of parties?
Holding:
No. The trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because §§19.02(b)(1)-(2) (Murder) and 15.03 (Criminal Solicitation) of the Penal Code do not have the same subject or purpose, which is the most important element under the doctrine of in pari materia. Sec. 19.02 penalizes a crime against a person, whereas §15.03 penalizes a person who induces or attempts to induce another person to commit a first-degree felony. Read opinion.
Estrada v. State
No. 04-20-00059-CR 6/30/21
Issue:
Did the trial court correctly deny a defendant’s motion to quash the indictment because it did not allege the circumstances of the act, which indicated that the defendant acted in a reckless manner?
Holding:
Yes. The indictment’s language, “recklessly cause[d] the death of an individual … by restraining [the victim] and depriving him of oxygen” satisfied the State’s burden to allege both an act and the circumstances indicating recklessness. The defendant’s act was restraining the victim, the manner was depriving the victim of oxygen, and an ordinary person would understand depriving the victim of oxygen recklessly caused his death. Read opinion.
State v. Patel
No. 05-20-00129-CR 7/2/21
Issue:
Did a search warrant for a blood draw violate Art. 18.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because the State did not provide the trial court with the return and inventory?
Holding:
No. As the Court of Criminal Appeals has determined, Art. 38.23, which requires evidence to be excluded when it is obtained in violation of the law, does not apply to Art. 18.10. Moreover, the Court noted the plain language of Art. 18.10 states, “The failure of an officer to make a timely return of an executed search warrant or to submit an inventory of the property … does not bar the admission of evidence under Article 38.23. …” Read opinion.
Attorney General Opinion
KP-0375 7/7/21
Issue:
May a newly elected constable immediately take office and provide evidence of peace officer licensure within 270 days, or is he required to defer taking office until he satisfies that eligibility requirement ?
Conclusion:
“Section 86.0021 does not address the exact date by which a constable must assume office, but under §601.003 of the Government Code, a person elected to the office of constable in the November general election must qualify and assume the duties of that office on January 1, or as soon as possible thereafter.” Regarding “as soon as possible,” the Attorney General stated a court would most likely construe that to mean within a reasonable time frame, which is a question of fact and not part of the Attorney General’s opinion process. Read opinion.