News and Insights

Prostitution Case Overturned for Lack of Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause | Fort Worth Prostitution Defense Attorneys

- San Antonio 4th Court of Appeals (2015)
At approximately 9:00 p.m., San Antonio police officer Christopher Connelly and his partner observed Shamar Johnson "pacing" on the sidewalk in a dimly lit area near two gay clubs. Officer Connelly's testimony differs from Johnson's in some respects, but there is general agreement on the relevant facts. The area was known for gay prostitution. Based on their belief that Johnson had no reason to be loitering in the area, Officer Connelly and his partner pulled up to Johnson in their car, exited the vehicle and began questioning Johnson.

When Johnson saw the car, he stopped. According to Officer Connelly, Johnson appeared to be nervous and put his hands in his pockets. Johnson said that the presence of the officers on either side of him was intimidating. Officer Connelly instructed Johnson to put his hands on the patrol car and asked Johnson if he had anything illegal in his possession. Again, Johnson said that he did not believe he could leave and had to do exactly what the officers said. Johnson told the officers they could search him. The officers found a plastic bag containing cocaine and arrested Johnson.

Johnson moved to suppress the evidence the officers found because the detention and search were unlawful. The trial court found Officer Connelly's testimony "credible" and denied the motion to suppress. Johnson subsequently struck a plea bargain and pled no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled substance.

Johnson appealed the trial court's decision. Consistent with the standard for reviewing a trial court's action on a motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals deferred almost entirely to the trial judge, who was in the best position to assess credibility of witnesses, regarding the facts of the case, but made its own determination regarding how the law applied to the facts.

In a four-step analysis, the Court of Appeals found the officers' encounter with Johnson constituted an unlawful seizure and the motion to suppress should have been granted.

(1) Both sides agreed that the officers' encounter with Johnson was not consensual. The State admitted there was no support to argue the search was consensual.

(2) The state argued the officers' detention of Johnson was based upon reasonable suspicion, which requires the existing of specific facts leading an officer to conclude that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The State cited the facts that Johnson was in a dimly lit area known for male prostitution and Johnson's "loitering" looked like someone who was engaged in prostitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that being present in a dimly lit area, even an area known for prostitution, does not provide reasonable suspicion that an individual is a prostitute. Because the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain Johnson, Johnson's detention was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(3) The Court considered whether Johnson's consent to search was an act of free will. The court noted the consent occurred shortly after Johnson was told to place his hands on the car and there were no intervening circumstances to lessen the "taint" of the improper detention. Although nothing indicated the officers intended to commit an unlawful detention, the Court found Johnson's consent was not an exercise of his free will and therefore did not remove the taint of the unlawful detention.

(4) After determining the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals considered whether that error made any difference in Johnson's punishment. Although Johnson accepted a plea bargain rather than go to trial, the Court of Appeals believed the denial of the motion to suppress gave the State leverage in the process and may have contributed to Johnson's giving up his right to a trial in order to obtain a favorable punishment recommendation.

Many people believe they are required to cooperate in any encounter with police until the police officers terminate the encounter. However, Johnson v. Texas makes it clear police officers do not have unlimited authority to detain an individual unless they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. While police officers may see reasonable suspicion where others would not and trial courts may agree, higher court decisions have set a standard for reasonable suspicion which limits police ability to detain citizens who, like Shamar Johnson, just appear to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

DWI Caselaw Update | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is often viewed as a guarantee against having to stand trial for an offense if an individual has already been found not guilty in a previous trial. It also applies to situations where a defendant is charged with more than one offense: Is it double jeopardy if a defendant receives multiple punishments for the same transaction for multiple offenses?

Yousef Benson was convicted of two offenses as a result of a 2010 traffic accident that seriously injured another individual--intoxication assault and felony DWI.  The offense of intoxication assault occurs when a person "by accident or mistake . . . while operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily injury to another."  Felony DWI occurs when a person "is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place" and the person has been previously been convicted of two DWI offenses.

The appellant argued that the two offenses should be considered the same offense, which would prevent the imposition of multiple punishments. The state argued that the offenses were separate and that multiple punishment was allowed. The principle point of contention was whether the previous conviction requirement for felony DWI is an element of the offense or is a punishment enhancement.

The Court of Criminal Appeals performed an "elements" analysis. The elements analysis looks at the specific elements of each crime. If each crime has the same elements, then a court presumes that the offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy. Conversely, if two offenses have different elements, the presumption is that the two offenses are separate. In either case, the presumption can be rebutted by showing that the legislature clearly intended the opposite result.

In Benson, the CCA focused on felony DWI's requirement of two previous convictions. In some cases, such requirements are viewed as creating a separate offense; in other cases, they are considered an enhancement of the level or the punishment for the offense. As Benson acknowledged, the CCA had already held in earlier cases that the required prior convictions for felony DWI constitute an element of the offense, calling them "specific attendant circumstances" that help define the offense. In other words, intoxication assault and felony DWI are presumed to be separate offenses, and a defendant can receive a sentence for each offense.

The CCA then turned to the question of whether there was evidence to rebut the presumption: Did the legislature intend for the two offenses to be treated as one? The court acknowledged that the two offenses are in the same chapter of the criminal code, a factor that supports the same-offense position. But the court looked at the language of the statute and concluded that if the legislature had intended the two offenses to be the same, they would have structured the statutory language differently.

The court also looked at the name of the offenses, pointing out that both offenses have some form of the word "intoxicate" in their names, although used as a modifier in each name rather than as a noun. The court concluded that this factor slightly favored the same-offense position.

The court noted that the two offenses have the same punishment ranges. Although this factor can favor either position, the court concluded that it slightly favored treating the same-offense view.

The court looked at the focus of the offenses and found intoxication assault to be a result-oriented offense (causing serious bodily injury) and felony DWI to be a conduct-oriented (driving while intoxicated) or circumstances-oriented (two prior convictions) offense. Unlike intoxication assault, felony DWI does not even require a victim. This analysis favored treating the offenses as separate.

Finally, the court considered the history of the two offenses and concluded that the various revisions of the criminal code supported the position that the two offenses are separate.

In its final analysis, the court recognized some factors supported Benson's argument (same offense). However, the court considered the factors supporting the state's position (separate offenses) as "more substantial." In the court's view, the evidence did not support the view that the legislature intended one punishment. Therefore, separate punishment for each offense was not a violation of Benson's right to protection from double jeopardy.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant's right to a "public" trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently confronted the question of whether and under what circumstances a criminal defendant may lose that right.

Bobby Joe Peyronel was convicted of a criminal offense. During a break in the punishment phase of Peyronel's trial, an unidentified female supporter approached a juror and asked how it felt to convict an innocent man.

Fearing juror intimidation and apparently unable to identify the woman, the prosecutor asked the judge to exclude all female members of Peyronel's family from the courtroom. Peyronel objected, arguing that granting the request would exclude Peyronel's wife and daughter and give the jury the impression Peyronel had no supporters. (The CCA's decision did not explain why the judge did not just question the juror, identify the woman who made the comment, and exclude her from the courtroom.)

In a possible overreaction, the judge ordered all witnesses and observers out of the courtroom. The punishment phase of the trial proceeded with witnesses waiting outside the courtroom until time to testify.

Peyronel appealed, arguing a violation of his constitutional right to a public trial. No one disputed that right. However, the State argued that because Peyronel did not ask the trial judge to do anything and did not inform the judge that he planned to appeal based on an alleged Sixth Amendment violation, Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right.

The Court first considered whether the right to a public trial is mandatory (must be enforced no matter what a defendant says or does), waivable (can be knowingly and intentionally relinquished by a defendant), or forfeitable (can be given up if a defendant does not insist on enforcement). The court briefly reviewed cases from other jurisdictions and concluded the public-trial right could be forfeited.

The Court then considered whether Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right. Although Peyronel objected to the trial judge's order to clear the courtroom, the CCA did not consider that to be the equivalent of asserting a violation of his constitutional right. The court said there was no "magic language" Peyronel needed to use to assert the violation, but he at least had to specifically state what he wanted the trial judge to do and upon what grounds his request was based. The CCA determined Peyronel did not meet that standard and, as a result, forfeited his right to a public trial.

Read the full opinion: Peyronel

In a strong dissent, Justice Johnson noted that the prosecutor's request was just to exclude female family members from the courtroom and Peyronel objected, arguing that such a broad action would remove his wife and daughter. Justice Johnson said that objection was sufficient on its own and it also implied Peyronel's objection to a complete exclusion.

Justice Johnson compared the situation to buying an appliance. If a customer has a two-foot-wide space for an appliance and a seller tries to sell an appliance that is two inches wider, the customer will object. By objecting to that appliance, Justice Johnson said, the customer is also making it clear that he would object to the seller substituting an appliance even wider than two feet, two inches. According to Justice Johnston, when Peyronel objected to the exclusion of female members of his family because it was too broad to accomplish the intended purpose, that also constituted an objection to the exclusion of even more people and made it clear to the trial judge that his order to clear the courtroom was too broad as well.

Peyronel v. Texas is interesting in at least two respects. Anecdotally, it seems odd that neither the majority nor the dissenters were troubled at all by the fact that the trial judge went beyond the prosecutor's request and ordered everyone from the courtroom rather than trying to identify the woman who was the object of concern and removing her.

More fundamentally, the principle that some constitutional rights can be waived is well established; for example, Miranda rights are frequently waived. But, the court's opinion suggests that a defendant can lose his constitutionally protected public-trial right by not speaking up, or, presumably, by speaking up but not speaking loudly or eloquently enough.

12 Persons Required to Serve on Texas Felony Jury Trial - Fort Worth Trial Lawyers

A felony jury trial in Texas requires 12 jurors (with limited exceptions). The defense can waive that requirement under certain circumstances, and jurors can be excused under certain circumstances. But generally, a felony jury panel must have 12. Below, we discuss a case in Denton County where the jury started with 12 and then went to 11 because a juror could not understand the English language well enough to serve.

Stillwell v. State - Opinion issued by the 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) on May 28, 2015

Appellant, Eben Stilwell was convicted in the 367th District Court in Denton County by an 11-person jury of indecency with a child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. A jury of 12 was originally empaneled but after three days of testimony, one of the jurors came forward and informed the court that he was having difficulty understanding the proceedings. The juror primarily spoke Spanish and was having difficulty following the proceedings because they were in English.

During the conversation between the judge and the juror, the juror repeatedly said "I understand a little bit" or "I don't understand." Both the defense and state agreed that the juror did not adequately understand the English language and was not completely following what was going on in the courtroom.

The prosecution and defense disagreed, however, as to the legal basis for the juror's removal. The state urged that juror be deemed "disabled" under Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.29(a), which would allow the trial to proceed with 11 jurors over defense objection. The defense argued that because the juror was never able to serve, he was disqualified and a trial using 11 jurors could only proceed with the defendant's consent. The defendant did not consent to continuing the trial with only 11 jurors. The trial court followed that state's recommendation and dismissed the juror as disabled, continuing the trial with only 11 jurors.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth), Justice Sudderth writing the opinion for the court, held that the court could have allowed the juror to remain on the jury because the right to have him excluded due to his inability to understand English had been forfeited. It is always the attorneys' duty to determine that capability and fitness of the jurors during voir dire. Neither party inquired as to ability to understand the English language.

But, once the court determined that the juror should be dismissed, consent of the defendant was required to proceed with 11 jurors. Because appellant did not agree to proceed with 11 jurors, a mistrial was required. The lower court was reversed.

Fort Worth Criminal Trial Lawyers

If you or a loved one have a criminal case in Fort Worth, you need to seek the best criminal defense lawyer to represent you and protect your rights at trial. Call our attorneys today for a Free Consultation of your case.

Warrantless Search & Seizure Upheld Under Exception to the Constitutional Warrant Requirement

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search & seizure."  Most people believe that a search without a warrant is an automatic violation of the 4th Amendment.  Not so.  Through years of criminal cases, the courts have crafted numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement.  Below is a case brief from a recent federal case in which several of these exceptions to the warrant requirement were employed against the defendant.

United States v. Conlan - U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

Over a one-year period, defendant Conlan sent a series of threatening emails and text messages to a woman he dated as a teenager. The police issued an arrest warrant for Conlan for harassment, and learned that he was registered in a local motel. After the officers saw Conlan's vehicle in the parking lot, they had the motel manager call Conlan to the front desk where they arrested him. When an officer asked Conlan if he wished to get anything from his room before being taken to the police station, Conlan said yes. Officers accompanied Conlan to his room and retrieved his wallet. While in Conlan's room, the lead investigator saw a laptop computer and two cell phones lying on the bed and ordered another officer to seize them. A subsequent search revealed the cell phones had been used to call the victim's workplace and obtain directions to her house, and the laptop used to conduct Internet searches for the victim's name. The officers also searched Conlan's car, which was located in the motel parking lot and seized a loaded handgun and riot stick. 

A trial, Conlan filed a motion to suppress the items seized from his motel room. By having the manager summon him to the front desk, Conlan argued the officers created the situation where he would be without his effects and forced into requesting a return to his room. Conlan also argued the officers unlawfully searched his car without a warrant.

First, the court held that if the officers wanted access to Conlan's room, they could have executed the arrest warrant there. In addition, the court found there was no evidence to suggest the officers pressured Conlan into returning to his room. Finally, when Conlan told the officers he wanted to return to his room, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by accompanying him there.

Next, the court held the officers made a lawful plain view seizure of Conlan's cell phones and laptop computer because the incriminating nature of these items was immediately apparent. The incriminating nature of an item is "immediately apparent" if an officer has probable cause to believe that the item is either evidence of a crime or contraband. Here, the lead investigator who ordered the seizure of Conlan's laptop and cell phones had first-hand knowledge of Conlan's harassing electronic communications; therefore, he had probable cause to believe these items constituted evidence of the crime of harassment.

Finally, the court held the warrantless search of Conlan's vehicle was lawful. Before locating Conlan at the motel, the officers knew that Conlan had recently driven his car past the victim's house. This act formed part of Conlan's course of criminal conduct and provided the officers with probable cause to believe the vehicle was evidence and an instrumentality of the crime of harassment. Consequently, the officers were entitled to impound and search Conlan's vehicle.

Warrantless Search Defense Attorneys - Fort Worth, Texas

If you believe that you have been the victim of an unlawful search and you are currently under investigation or charged with a crime in Texas, contact a criminal defense attorney today. Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC offers free consultations on all criminal cases.