Texas Courts of Appeals

State v. Castaneda

Nos. 07-24-00243-CR & -00244-CR                  4/25/25

Issue:

Can the State appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to present a witness’s testimony by videoconferencing?

Holding:

No. Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 44.01(a)(5) allows the State to appeal only a trial court’s order that grants a motion to suppress evidence, a confession, or an admission. “Saved for another day is the interplay between technology and the Sixth Amendment. Article 44.01(a)(5) affording the State no avenue of appeal from the orders denying its own motions for leave to present a witness via a particular technological format, we dismiss the appeals before us.” Read opinion.

Commentary:

The State is entitled to appeal only in the specific circumstances enumerated in Art. 44.01. Provisions in Art. 44.01 have been interpreted in such a way as to permit the State to appeal if the effect of a trial court’s order is functionally the same as a basis for a permitted State’s appeal. One example of this came in State v. Garcia, 638 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), in which the CCA held that the State could appeal an order by a trial court granting the defendant’s request for Art. 11.09 habeas corpus relief because the order was the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial (which the State may appeal under Article 44.01(a)(3)). That is not the situation here, though, because the appellate court concluded that the trial court’s order denying the State’s motion is not the functional equivalent of an order granting a defense motion to suppress. So, what are the State’s options now? A couple that come to mind are:  (1) since the witness’s testimony has not been suppressed, technically, find a way to present the witness’s testimony live, in court, rather than via videoconferencing; or (2) if that remains impossible or exceedingly impractical, offer the witness’s testimony via videoconferencing at trial anyway and, if the trial court still refuses to allow it—despite the State’s thorough explanations as to why it’s necessary and why the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights will still be protected—file a cross-point on appeal (assuming the defendant is convicted) to challenge the trial court’s legal ruling, under Article 44.01(c).

Geer v. State

No. 14-23-00136-CR                   4/24/25

Issue:

Should the trial court have conducted an informal competency inquiry based on the defendant’s bizarre statements that his “‘identical brother’ with matching tattoos” committed the charged murder, his “combativeness during trial and general inability to grasp the proceedings before him, long history of mental illness, and active schizophrenia medication regimen”? Read opinion.

Holding:

No. The trial court was not obligated to hold an informal competency inquiry under the factors in Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 46B.024(l). “We conclude that although Geer suffers from a mental health illness that requires medication to maintain competency to stand trial, the record reflects that Geer had (1) a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him throughout trial.” 

Commentary:

Because mental health and competency issues are on the rise, all prosecutors should read this opinion and familiarize themselves with the law and procedures regarding what triggers the trial court’s duty to conduct an informal competency inquiry, including the factors enumerated in Article 46B.024(1)—which this opinion comprehensively explains and evaluates. Fortunately for the State in this case, the record was thoroughly developed regarding the defendant’s competency history (including an order by the trial court signed 6 days before trial began that the defendant had regained competency to stand trial) and the facts that, although the defendant certainly had mental health problems and had inappropriate outbursts during trial proceedings, he could volitionally control his outbursts and behavior in front of the jury, and otherwise exhibited an ability to rationally understand the proceedings and communicate with defense counsel. If you have a case where you believe that the defendant’s competency may be litigated after-the-fact, as in this instance, keep this opinion in mind and be sure to do all you can to create a clear record for appellate purposes, including making observations on the record about the defendant’s behavior and communications, if you need to (e.g., “Your honor, please let the record reflect that the defendant is taking notes and communicating with defense counsel during voir dire,” etc.).

Free training on prosecution of elder abuse in Houston

Please note that this is a regional event open only to prosecutors from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Date and Location: June 10-13, 2025, in Houston, TX
Training Overview: The National Institute on the Prosecution of Elder Abuse (NIPEA) is a three-and-a-half day course designed to challenge prosecutors to reevaluate their approach to prosecuting elder abuse cases. Participants receive training on the dynamics of elder abuse as well as practical skills to successfully prosecute these cases, balancing offender accountability with the impact of criminal prosecution on victims. Using a problem-based, interactive format, NIPEA explores the complex issues faced by prosecutors. Topics covered include: 

• Case evaluation and litigation skills 
• Unique aspects of prosecuting elder abuse crimes involving domestic violence, sexual assault, neglect, financial exploitation, psychological abuse, and stalking 
• Dementia and capacity issues 
• Common injuries, relevant medical evidence, and the use of medical experts 
• Ethical issues and prosecutorial leadership 
• The benefits of developing a coordinated, victim-centered community response 
• Redefining outcomes and exploring the nature of justice in elder abuse cases 
• Resources available to support prosecutors handling elder abuse cases 

Attendees may qualify for approximately 18 continuing legal education credit hours including at least one hour of ethics credit. 

Application process: Interested prosecutors from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas may apply to attend this regional event by completing the application. Submission of an application does not guarantee a spot in the Institute; please DO NOT make travel arrangements unless and until you have been notified that you are accepted for the course. OVW approval of this event is still pending. 

This event is open to prosecutors only. Preference will be given to prosecuting agencies participating in the OVW Training and Services to End Abuse in Later Life Program.  All other applicants will be considered in the order in which they apply.  

If you need assistance completing the application form, please contact Ann Laatsch at [email protected]. The application deadline is May 15, 2025. 

Cost: There is no tuition fee for the institute. A limited number of scholarships for travel and lodging expenses are available for prosecutors from communities not currently receiving an OVW Training and Services to End Abuse in Later Life grant. Individuals requesting scholarship funding can do so when they complete the NIPEA application form.

Lodging: A block of hotel rooms has been reserved at the federal room rate. Information about accessing the room block will be sent to participants upon approval of their application.  

Contact information: Please contact Ann Laatsch at [email protected] for more information about this program.