Texas Courts of Appeals
Harrison v. State
No. 07-20-00028-CR 7/29/21
Issue:
Is a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses violated when a trial court considers a presentence investigation report (PSI) at the punishment hearing?
Holding:
No. When the PSI is being used in a non-capital case, the defendant waives his right to appellate review when he does not obtain a ruling from the trial court after a timely objection. In this case, the defendant agreed to the trial court’s plan to order a PSI, affirmatively requested a PSI, and made no objection to the court’s consideration of the PSI. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The court of appeals held that it was bound by authority from the Court of Criminal Appeals. At some point, you might see a case holding that a defendant’s confrontation rights apply in the punishment stage of the trial. But it is still pretty certain that the Confrontation Clause will not apply to PSI reports.
Ruiz v. State
No. 11-18-00267-CR 7/30/21
Issue:
Did admitting photographs of a defendant’s tattoos and testimony regarding his affiliation with the “most hated” gang unfairly prejudice the defendant and violate Rule 403?
Holding:
No. While the Court noted admission of the “most hated” gang evidence was undoubtedly prejudicial to the defendant, it was not unfairly prejudicial. Here, the evidence of gang affiliation or membership could be admissible during the guilt/innocence phase for a noncharacter purpose to show the defendant’s motive or intent to commit the charged offenses. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision involves two counts of capital murder in which the State was not seeking the death penalty, so there was no punishment stage of trial. The most common reason that gang affiliation evidence would be admissible at the guilt/innocence stage of the trial is to show the defendant’s motive in committing the charged offense(s). That certainly was borne out by the evidence in the case.
Rios v. State
No. 14-18-00886-CR 8/3/21
Issue:
Was a 30–45-minute search of the defendant’s home a lawful protective sweep after he was arrested outside of his house, and officers did not articulate a belief that any persons were in the home who posed a danger to the police or others?
Holding:
The Court vacated and withdrew its granting of en banc reconsideration of the case as improvidently granted and denied the defendant’s motion for en banc reconsideration, letting stand the original panel opinion that the protective sweep was reasonable. Read opinion.
Concurrence (Zimmerer, J.):
“The simple fact is that whether a protective sweep was justified and whether drugs were appropriately seized are fact-intensive questions. These decisions, by their nature, must be based on the facts of each particular case, and the en banc Court has appropriately given deference to the panel’s judgment.” Read opinion.
Dissent (Hassan, J.):
“A majority of this court has … chosen to authorize warrantless 20-minute comprehensive searches of private homes, even when (1) the subject of the only proper warrant is arrested outside, (2) no fact suggests anyone can be found inside, (3) no fact supports a reasonable suspicion of danger, (4) officers have completed their outdoor arrest, and (5) officers have departed the premises with their arrestee for 10 to 15 minutes before returning to the premises to enter the home.” Read opinion.
Dissent (Poissant, J.):
This dissent concluded that because the officers failed to state specific and articulable facts upon which they could have reasonably believed anyone was inside the house or that anyone concealed posed a danger to their safety, the protective sweep was unreasonable and invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The concurring opinion details the facts that supported a protective sweep in this case, and the majority opinion in the panel opinion—issued back on August 27 of last year—goes into even more detail. The State and law enforcement did a great job in marshalling the significant facts that supported a protective sweep. If you have such an issue in a case, definitely read the majority opinion. Because there are dissenting opinions in this published case, the Court of Criminal Appeals may review it. But this decision should hold up.
Texas Attorney General Opinion Request
RQ-0421-KP 8/3/21
Issue:
Does the application of mandatory Critical Race Theory teachings violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Art. 1, §3, and §8 of the Texas Constitution, or any other applicable laws?
Requested By:
Rep. James White, House District 19