Texas Courts of Appeals
State v. Wiseman – 3rd COA
11/13/08 : Cite No. 03-07-00661-CR : In pari materia
Was the trial court in error when it quashed indictments after it concluded that, under the doctrine of in pari materia, the prosecutions must be brought under Labor Code §418.002(a), which criminalizes fraud in obtaining workers’ compensation insurance, and not under Texas Penal Code §32.46(a)(1) and (b)(7) (securing execution of documents by deception)?
Yes. The two statutes do not have the same purpose or objective. Instead, they were intended to cover different situations and protect different interests. Although the same conduct may sometimes violate both statutes, the statutes are not in pari materia.
Another reversal for Travis County Judge Charlie Baird, a former CCA judge and the object of some local controversy for his frequent pro-defendant rulings. The in pari materia doctrine is like obscenity: We only know it when we see it. Perhaps, someday, the Legislature will write a statute just abolishing the doctrine. Prosecutors should have discretion to charge the specific or general crime.
Texas Attorney General Opinions
Attorney General Opinion GA-0683
11/13/08 : Opinion No. GA-0683 : Electronic Monitoring
May the McLennan County Commissioners Court establish an electronic monitoring program, separate from a program established by the local community supervision and corrections department, that may be imposed as a component of house arrest under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 42.035(b)?
No. The statute does not authorize a county commissioners court to establish an electronic monitoring program separate from that established by a community supervision and corrections department.
Seems strange that the county commissioners would want to establish a house arrest alternative to jail apart from the program authorized in the probation department. Probably a good idea to have some oversight through the judges and a statewide agency rather than county commissioners.
Requests for Attorney General Opinions
Opinion Request from the 216th District RQ-0757-GA
Is flooring purchased and installed in offices owned or rented by a police department considered a "law enforcement purpose" if the offices are used by investigators during the course and in the scope of their employment as investigators with the police department?
Anyone with input on these issues may contact the Attorney General’s Office.
The answer may depend on how "direct" the use must relate to a law enforcement purpose. On the other hand, you can’t very well investigate a case without a floor in your office. The statutory limitation for expenditure of prosecutor funds does not include a list of examples that might narrow the meaning of the purpose.
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.