Skip to main content
Tag

1st COA

Oct 24
Love0
Deadly Weapon Law in Texas

When is a Deadly Weapon Not a “Deadly Weapon?”

By Deadly Weapon

The Frustrating “Deadly Weapon” Issue

Deadly Weapon Law in TexasThe “deadly weapon finding” under Texas criminal law is an issue that leads most criminal defense lawyers to bang their collective heads against the courthouse wall. It seems that just about anything and everything is, has been, or will soon be, designated as a “deadly weapon” when the prosecution deems it helpful to securing a conviction and lengthier sentence. Here are some deadly weapons that we’ve seen recently: car, fist, baseball bat, walking stick, STDs, fire, fake gun, etc.

In the case below, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally ratcheted back the power of the State to enhance a case with a deadly weapon finding.  Kudos to the 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) for stepping out on this issue.

Question Presented:  To support a deadly-weapon finding, must the “exhibition” of the deadly weapon facilitate, in some manner, the felony offense? Or is it sufficient that the exhibition of the deadly weapon occurs simultaneously with the felony but is unrelated to its commission?

In Plummer v. State, the Houston Court of Appeals, First Judicial District, held that there “must be some facilitation purpose between the weapon and the associated offense to support a deadly-weapon finding.”

Dec 07
Love0

A Couple of Troubling Cases: Drug Dogs and Consent Searches

By Warrantless Search
The following cases were reported to me as “interesting cases,” but I would reclassify them as “troubling” (especially the second one).  We might just see these again sometime soon if the CCA decides to hear them.
 
Duration of traffic stop not unreasonable, despite officer’s remark that the purpose of checking passenger’s license was to “buy time” until the K-9 dog arrived.
Campbell v. State, 2012 WL 3201923 (Tex.App.-Tyler Aug 08, 2012) (NO. 12-11-00324-CR)
Quoting from the opinion: “Appellant contends that the true purpose of the stop ended when he was cleared of any outstanding warrants at 12:44 a.m. In his brief, Appellant points out that the evidence indicates that (1) the officers did not smell marijuana in the vehicle, (2) [officers] discussed that Appellant and [passenger] were calm, but that their demeanor might change when the K–9 unit arrived, and (3) [officer] remarked that [other officer] was just buying some time by talking to [passenger]….We initially note that [officer’s] remark concerning [other officer’s] ‘buying time’ is troubling.  But the trial court was not required to examine [the] statement in a vacuum.  The officers were justified in checking whether there were any outstanding warrants for [passenger]….The traffic stop may have concluded more quickly if the officers had requested information on outstanding warrants for Appellant and [passenger] at the same time.  But the officers were under no obligation to investigate the situation in any particular order.”
D’s consent to house search deemed “voluntary,” despite presence of twenty officers on D’s property and a police helicopter hovering overhead.
 
Schield v. State, 2012 WL 3228829 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) Aug 09, 2012) (NO. 01-11-00466-CR, 01-11-00467-CR)
Quoting from the opinion:  “‘An environment of few or many officers is significant in determining the validity of a consent to search,’ and the Court of Criminal Appeals ‘has been critical of consent given in the face of numbers of armed officers.’….We find this case distinguishable…Appellant was behind a tall privacy fence on his property when [officer] called and asked him to come to the front of the property….[I]n Lowery, one of the officers had a pistol drawn, and at least five officers were inside the apartment before the seventeen year-old gave verbal consent, but here only two officers, with no guns drawn, approached the middle-aged Appellant at his gate to ask for consent….Appellant further testified that none of the officers yelled at him and that he made small talk with the officers before they asked him to sign the consent form.”
Nov 28
Love0

A Prosecutor’s Comment on a Defendant’s Right Not to Testify

By Jury Trial

The Extent of a Defendant’s Right Not to Testify?

If a criminal defendant takes the stand during trial on the merits and denies culpability, but then, after being convicted, chooses not to testify during the punishment phase of the trial, may the prosecutor comment during closing that the defendant has “not taken responsibility for the crime?”

The 1st District Court of Appeals (Houston) says NO. But what about the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?

In Randolph v. State, No. PD-0404-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), appellant testified during guilt/innocence he was never at the scene of the crime and offered the jury an alibi. After the jury convicted him, he did not take the stand during the punishment phase of the trial. The prosecutor argued during close (in the punishment phase):

You heard from him, you heard his version and you dismissed it by finding him guilty. He has not taken responsibility for this crime.

On appeal, appellant relied upon Swallow v. State, 829 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) to argue that the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify during the punishment phase of trial. The 1st COA agreed and held the prosecution violated the precedent set forth in Swallow. The CCA didn’t buy it, however, holding:

[A] punishment-stage remark on the defendant’s failure to accept responsibility may be fair game if the defendant, in his guilt-stage testimony, denied responsibility for his actions or for the crime.

The 1st COA held this closing argument remark was the same as the remark given by the state in Swallow, but the CCA distinguishes:

But in this case the prosecutor said nothing about remorse or lack of remorse. She spoke only of “responsibility of the crime” – responsibility that appellant explicitly denied during his testimony. This Court, in Swallow, inadvertently combined the apples of “remorse” (which is generally expressed only after accepting responsibility) with the oranges of “responsibility.”

The CCA further explained:

The prosecutor may comment on any testimony given by the defendant in the guilt stage, and, if the defendant expressly or impliedly denies criminal responsibility during that testimony, the prosecutor may comment on that denial.

Dissenting Judge Meyers asserts:

By referring to the fact that Appellant did not take responsibility for the crime, the state pointed out that the defendant did not testify during punishment phase of his trial. The majority complicates the matter by analyzing the definitions of the words used by the prosecutor, rather than considering their obvious meaning – thus creating a horrible Hobson’s choice for the defendant, an indiscernible dilemma for the trial judge, and an appellate record that will be difficult to decipher.