Saddling Up DWI Rules Of Evidence

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Saddling Up DWI Rules Of Evidence"

Transcription

1 Saddling Up DWI Rules Of Evidence Stuart Kinard Memorial Advanced DWI Cross Examination Seminar San Antonio, Texas November 12-13, 2009 Mark Stevens 310 S. St. Mary's, Suite 1920 San Antonio, Texas (210)

2 Table of Contents DWI EVIDENCE...1 I. RULE 101( c) Hierarchy...1 A. Some Laws Are Stronger Than Others...1 B. Using The Texas Constitution To Win Heitman v. State The general rule, and how to invoke it When the Texas Constitution is more protective...2 a. Search and seizure...2 b. Double jeopardy...3 c. Scope of voir dire...3 d. Post-arrest silence...4 e. Equal rights and due course of law...4 f. When the state loses or destroys evidence...5 g. Must the prosecutor present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury?...7 h. Guns: Bear but don t wear...7 i. Is obscenity legal in Texas?...8 j. Bad DWI Videos...8 k. Cruel Or Unusual...9 II. RULE 101(d) When The Rules Don t Apply...9 A. Hearsay Is Admissible...10 ii

3 B. Personal Knowledge Is Not Required...10 III. RULE 103(a) Preserving Error...10 A. TEX. R. APP. PROC. Rule 33.1(a): Timely, Specific, Ruled-Upon Objections...10 B. Important Preservation Cases...11 C. Exceptional Situations Pre-trial motions Charging instrument error Jury charge error Rule 103(d): Fundamental error Blue v. State Limiting instructions...13 D. Objections Outside The Jury s Presence...14 E. Hearings Outside The Jury s Presence...14 F. The Running Objection...15 IV. Rule 107 Open Doors...15 A. The Rule Of Optional Completeness...15 B. Rule V. Relevancy Rule Relevancy Rule A. Some Relevancy Cases...17 iii

4 VI. Prejudice, etc. Rule A. Montgomery v. State...18 B. Cases Favorable To The Defense...19 C. Cases Favorable To The State...20 D. Stipulating To Priors...20 VII. Character Testimony Rule A. In General...22 B. What Is extraneous?...22 C. The Defendant s Character For Sobriety...22 D. Why Extraneous Misconduct Is Generally Inadmissible...22 E. Montgomery v. State: The Seminal 404(b) Case...23 F. Notice...24 G. No Mudwrestling Allowed...25 VIII. Rule 609 Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime...25 A. Moral Turpitude...26 B. The Balancing Test...29 C. Probation And Deferred Adjudication...29 D. Juveniles...30 E. Offenses Taken Into Consideration And Dismissed Cannot Be Used To Impeach...30 F. Brady v. Maryland...30 iv

5 G. Prosecutors Can t Talk Out Of Both Sides Of Their Mouth...30 H. Opening The Door...30 IX. Rule 613 Prior Statements of Witnesses: Impeachment and Support...31 X. Rule 615 Production of Statements of Witnesses in Criminal Cases...31 A. Rule B. Possession Of The State...33 XI. Rule 702 Testimony By Experts...33 A. Rule B. The Daubert Test...33 C. Emerson v. State And The Admissibility Of HGN Evidence...34 XII. Rule 705(b) Disclosure Of Facts Or Data Underlying Expert Opinion...34 A. This Rule Is Mandatory...35 XIII. Rule 801(d) Hearsay...35 A. Backdoor Hearsay...35 XIV. Rule 803(1), (4), (8) & (18) Hearsay Exceptions; Availability Of Declarant Immaterial...35 A. Present Sense Impressions (Not)...36 B. Medical Records...37 C. Public Records...37 D. Learned Treatises...37 XV. Rule 503(b) Lawyer-Client Privilege...37 v

6 A. Article XVI. Rule 509(b) Physician-Patient Privilege...38 A. Cases...38 XVII. Rule 902 Self-Authentication...39 Affidavit [Business Records]...40 Sample 1 [Motion For Production Of Field Sobriety Training Manuals Used By Arresting Officer]...42 Sample 2 [Notice Of Filing Of Business Record Affidavit]...46 vi

7 DWI EVIDENCE DWI trials are similar in most respects to all other criminal trials. There are a few things unique to DWIs, though, and there are a few evidentiary rules that the DWI trial lawyer must pay special attention to. This paper emphasizes those Rules of Evidence and associated cases that I believe are important in all criminal trials, and particularly so in DWI trials. I. RULE 101(c) Hierarchy Hierarchical governance shall be in the following order: the Constitution of the United States, those federal statutes that control states under the supremacy clause, the Constitution of Texas, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, civil statutes, these rules, and the common law. Where possible, inconsistency is to be removed by reasonable construction. A. Some Laws Are Stronger Than Others. Rule 101(c) explains the hierarchy that binds criminal lawyers: Federal Constitution; State Constitution; the code of criminal procedure and the penal code; civil statutes; the rules of evidence; and, the common law. Understanding the hierarchy is important. If you can t win under the federal constitution, you might be able to win under some lesser rule, such as the state constitution, or a state statute, or a rule of evidence, provided, of course, that the lesser rule you want to rely on does not conflict with some greater power in the hierarchy. And sometimes, all you need is one way to win. B. Using The Texas Constitution To Win. 1. Heitman v. State. We have long known in theory at least that state constitutions may be more protective than their federal counterparts. Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 62 (1968); Brown v. State, 657 S.W. 2d 797, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); See also Duncan, Terminating the Guardianship: A New Role for State Courts, 19 St. Mary s L.J. 809 (1988). About 15 years ago, Heitman v. State eloquently suggested that this theoretical concept might also have real meaning in the courtroom. The court of criminal appeals reversed the court below for giving only cursory treatment to appellant s claim that the inventory search there though lawful under the Fourth Amendment was invalid under Article I, 9 of the Texas Constitution. The court shuddered to think that Texans might walk lock-step 1

8 with the Supreme Court, and it decline[d] to blindly follow that Court s search and seizure opinions. Heitman v. State, 815 S.W. 2d 681, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Today we reserve for ourselves the power to interpret our own constitution. Id. at 682. Heitman did not itself grant any positive relief to the defendant; it merely remanded the case to the court of appeals to conduct an independent state constitutional analysis. Id. On remand the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that the inventory search did not violate Article I, 9 of the Texas Constitution. Heitman v. State, 836 S.W. 2d 840, 841 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1992, no pet.). The decision, though, was extraordinarily important because it made it clear that competent defense lawyers could no longer ignore state constitutional issues. And that is still true today. 2. The general rule, and how to invoke it. To take advantage of the greater protection sometimes offered by the state constitution, the lawyer must specifically invoke the Texas constitutional provision sought to be relied upon. At trial, of course, this requires a specific and timely objection. See TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(1). Appellate issues based on the state constitution should be briefed in separate points of error from their federal counterparts, with separate substantive analysis or argument provided for each ground. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 238, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 837 (1993). 3. When the Texas Constitution is more protective. Following are several areas in which a Texas court has interpreted our constitution more broadly than the federal constitution. I ve also thrown in a few arguments that can be made, but which have not yet been recognized by the courts. a. Search and seizure. In Autran v. State, 887 S.W. 2d 31, 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), a plurality of the court held that the Texas Constitution limits the authority of the police to inventory closed containers found in vehicles. But see Trujillo v. State, 952 S.W. 2d 879, 881 (Tex. App. Dallas 1997, no pet.)(autran not binding precedent). In State v. Ybarra, 953 S.W. 2d 242, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the court of criminal appeals held that, pursuant to Article I, 9, the State must prove the voluntariness of a consent to search by clear and convincing evidence, even though the federal constitution requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. In Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), disagreeing with 2

9 the Supreme Court s interpretation of a comparable issue under the Fourth Amendment, our court held that the use of a pen register may well constitute a search under Article I, 9 of the Texas Constitution. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether such a search was unreasonable absent probable cause. Id. at 954. On remand the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed, finding it unnecessary to decide the issue found so difficult and interesting by the higher court. Richardson v. State, 902 S.W. 2d 689, 692 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1995, no pet.). Though recent cases say little if anything about pen registers, it appears that Richardson is still good law. Apparently, Heitman has a flip-side. In Hulit v. State, 982 S.W. 2d 431, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the court held that the Texas Constitution may offer less protection than the United States Constitution. In that case, the court found that Article I, 9 of the Texas Constitution does not require that a search and seizure be authorized by a warrant. b. Double jeopardy. In Bauder v. State, 921 S.W. 2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Texas Constitution found at Article I, 14 provides broader protection than does its Fifth Amendment counterpart. We therefore hold that a successive prosecution is jeopardy barred after declaration of a mistrial at the defendant's request, not only when the objectionable conduct of the prosecutor was intended to induce a motion for mistrial, but also when the prosecutor was aware but consciously disregarded the risk that an objectionable event for which he was responsible would require a mistrial at the defendant's request. Id. at 699. On February 10, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals squarely overruled Bauder in Ex Parte Lewis. Now, the proper rule under the Texas Constitution is the rule articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Kennedy. Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). According to the new five-judge majority, the Bauder standard was flawed in a number of respects. The court believed that the Kennedy standard was a better way to decide whether to bar retrial after a defense requested mistrial. Id. at 371. Judges Price, Meyers, Johnson, and Holcomb dissented. c. Scope of voir dire. In limited cases, essential fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that potential jurors be questioned on the issue of racial bias. Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 527 (1973). Outside this narrow area, however, there is generally no federal constitutional right to voir dire specifically directed to matters potentially prejudicial to the defendant. See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594 (1976). That is, lawyers looking for a constitutional right to broad latitude on voir dire will find little solace in the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 3

10 Constitution. Article I, 10 of the Texas Constitution, however, does guarantee, among other things, the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Texas cases have held that counsel is entitled to broad latitude on voir dire so that he or she can intelligently exercise their peremptory challenges, in order to render effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by Article I, 10 of the Texas Constitution. E.g., Mathis v. State, 322 S.W. 2d 629, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959); accord Shipley v. State, 790 S.W. 2d 604, (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Robinson v. State, 720 S.W. 2d 808, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Smith v. State, 703 S.W. 2d 641, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). So, if you want authority for more voir dire, look to the state constitution, and state case law. d. Post-arrest silence. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from impeaching the defendant with evidence that he invoked his right to silence after being arrested and warned pursuant to Miranda. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). The Doyle argument, though, is unavailable if the defendant was not Mirandized. See Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982). There is a different rule under Article I, 10 of the Texas Constitution. In Sanchez v. State, 707 S.W. 2d 575, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the court held that a defendant may not be impeached through the use of post-arrest, pre-miranda silence since such impeachment violates the defendant's right to be free from compelled self-incrimination, and also since such impeachment is improper from an evidentiary standpoint. [emphasis supplied] e. Equal rights and due course of law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has clauses guaranteeing equal protection and due process of law. In the 1970's there was an unsuccessful effort to amend the federal constitution to add an equal rights amendment. Although the federal effort failed, in 1973 our state enacted TEX. CONST. ART. I, 3a which provides that [e]quality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. In Esteves v. State, 849 S.W. 2d 822, 823 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), the court of criminal appeals acknowledged that this provision prohibits the exercise of peremptory challenges based on race, just as does the federal equal protection clause. On its face, our state constitutional equal rights amendment looks broader than the federal Equal Protection Clause. See In Interest of McLean, 725 S.W. 2d 696 (Tex. 1987). It might be argued, then, that this provision provides even more protection than the Batson case. See Yebra v. State, 915 S.W. 2d 492, 493 (Tex. 4

11 Crim. App. 1996)(Judges Overstreet and Baird, dissenting to the refusal of a petition for discretionary review, suggest that it is time for Texas courts to ensure that Texans are sufficiently protected against the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by interpreting Article I, 3a of the Texas Constitution as providing greater protection than does the U.S. Constitution ). f. When the state loses or destroys evidence. What remedy does the defense have when the state loses or destroys potentially exculpatory evidence? Not much, according to the Federal Constitution, unless the defendant can somehow prove bad faith on the government s part. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988). Good luck. In Pena v. State, 226 S.W. 3d 634 (Tex. App. Waco 2007, pet. granted), appellant moved for independent testing of the marijuana he was charged with possessing. Testing was impossible because the state destroyed the marijuana and lost all records concerning the testing, except the lab report. The trial court denied appellant s motion to suppress the lab report, and the court of appeals reversed. The federal Due Process standard is found in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), which requires a defendant to show bad faith when the state fails to preserve potentially useful evidence. Appellant failed to meet that burden here. Although the framers of the Texas Constitution intended that due course of law be construed the same as is due process of law, it is also true that both are evolving and flexible concepts. After Youngblood, it has been almost impossible to prove bad faith. Since that case though, much has changed. Twelve other states have decided that the Youngblood standard is not adequate to address the loss or destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence. [C]oncern about the injustice that results from the conviction of an innocent person has long been at the core of our criminal justice system. That concern is reflected, for example, in the fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. Therefore, we join those twelve states and hold that, under the Due Course of Law provision of Article I, Section 19, the State has a duty to preserve material evidence which has apparent exculpatory value, encompassing 5

12 both exculpatory evidence and evidence that is potentially useful to the defense. The court of appeals went on to adopt a three part balancing test to determine whether a defendant s state constitutional right to due course of law was violated by the state s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence: would the evidence have been subject to discovery or disclosure; did the state have a duty to preserve the evidence; and, if there was a duty to preserve, was that duty breached, and, if so, what consequences should flow from the breach. The consequences depend on the degree of negligence, the importance of the evidence, and the sufficiency of the other evidence. Utilizing these tests, the court of appeals found appellant was denied due course of law. There are three remedies for this error: dismissal; exclusion of the related evidence; an adverse inference instruction. Here, the court believed the best remedy was the instruction. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted the state s petition for discretionary review to determine, among other things, whether the due course of law provision of the Texas Constitution grants a defendant broader protection than does Federal Due Process. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals avoided the merits of the case, finding that appellant s trial objection was insufficient to preserve the error. Pena explicitly invoked the Texas due course of law provision, but failed to argue that it provides greater protection than the federal Due Process Clause. The judge and prosecutor understood that he was complaining initially under the federal constitution and Pena never disabused the judge of this notion even when, in reurging his prior objections to protect the appellate record, Pena was obligated to put the trial judge on notice of the specific legal theory that he intended to advocate because: the federal constitutional standard was clearly established; the trial judge and the State unmistakably relied solely on the federal standard; and there is no independent interpretation on the subject of lost or destroyed evidence under the Texas Constitution's due course of law provision. We hold that, by failing to distinguish the rights and protections afforded under the Texas due course of law provision from those provided under the Fourteenth Amendment before the trial judge in this context, Pena failed to preserve his complaint that the due course of law provides greater protection for appellate review. Pena v. State, 285 S.W. 3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) 6

13 The good news is that after years of litigation in Pena, we are right back where we started. That is, nobody knows whether the state constitution provides greater protection than does its federal counterpart with regard to lost or destroyed evidence. Doubtless some future case will decide the issue, now that we know how to preserve it. In the meantime, I can see several possible uses Pena-type arguments. If the police videotape your client, then lose the videotape before trial, object under the State Constitution. So far, at least in the Fourth Court of Appeals, these claims have not been successful. E.g., Salazar v. State, 185 S.W. 3d 90, (Tex. App. San Antonio 2005, no pet.)(san Antonio Court of Appeals declines to follow Waco Court). I have also argued that due course of law is denied when my client s breath is tested by the Intoxilyzer 5000, then flushed before I have a chance to retest it. Although I have not won yet, I intend to keep making this argument unless and until the court of criminal appeals forecloses it. g. Must the prosecutor present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury? As they remind us daily, prosecutors are duty-bound to seek justice. The very statute that imposes on them the rather amorphous duty to seek justice also more specifically dictates that [t]hey shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art Should not a justice-seeking prosecutor have the duty to provide significant exculpatory evidence to the grand jury? The Federal Constitution does not help us. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 51 (1992)(Fifth Amendment does not require the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury). What about an argument under Article I, 10 of the Texas Constitution, which says that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal defense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury? Chief Justice Lopez of the San Antonio Court of Appeals believes that prosecutors should have a limited duty to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury for several reasons, including: (1) a defendant's state constitutional right to a meaningful indictment; (2) a Texas prosecutor's statutory duty to see that justice is done; and (3) a Texas prosecutor's statutory obligation not to suppress facts. In re Grand Jury Proceedings 198.GJ.20, 129 S.W. 3d 140, 145 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, rev. denied)(lopez, C.J., dissenting). The majority opinion, of course, rejected that idea, although it did acknowledge that [t]he majority of the state courts that have addressed the issue have found that prosecutors have a limited duty to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries. Id. at 143(emphasis supplied). See also State v. Sandoval, 842 S.W. 2d 782, 789 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref d)(justice best served by presenting exculpatory evidence to grand jury). That sounds like a good argument to me and I ve made it twice recently in cases where I thought there was significant exculpatory evidence that the grand jury never saw. 7

14 h. Guns: Bear but don t wear. The Second Amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So far, the United States Supreme Court has not endorsed the view, held by some, that the Second Amendment entirely prevents the state from criminalizing weapons offenses. E.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 816, 817 (1939); but see District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct (2008). I had a difficult case once where I argued that persons in Texas have the right to bear arms under the State Constitution, which on its face seems broader than the Second Amendment. Specifically, Article I, 23 reads: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. I did not win this argument, and I have not won it in any of the several subsequent cases I made it in, but I still think it is interesting, and it might provide something to argue in an otherwise hopeless unlawfully carrying case. Note that the court of criminal appeals dismissed both the state and the federal constitutional arguments in Masters v. State, 685 S.W. 2d 654, 655 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 853 (1985). Masters, though, was a pre-heitman case. Subsequently, several intermediate courts of appeals have come to similar conclusions. E.g., Jordan v. State, 56 S.W. 3d 326, 330 (Tex. App. Houston [1 st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref d); Wilson v. State, 44 S.W. 3d 602, 605 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref d). i. Is obscenity legal in Texas? Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 (1957). But is there a different standard under the Texas Constitution? Not according to the Texas appellate courts. At least not yet. In Campbell v. State, 765 S.W. 2d 816 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1988, pet. ref d). John Rowland argued that Article I, 8 of the Texas Constitution is broader than the First Amendment, broad enough, indeed, to prevent the prosecution of pornographers. Although the San Antonio Court of Appeals disagreed, Justice Esquivel wanted to see a more specific holding on the constitutionality of our obscenity laws in Texas under our constitutional provisions by our Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 823. I filed a petition for discretionary review asking for just that, but the high court was apparently less interested than the court below. j. Bad DWI Videos. I don t worry so much about high breath scores. I don t worry at all when I read a 8

15 DWI report that makes my client sound intoxicated almost to the point of death. Those cases are common, and we defense lawyers handle them all the time. Every DWI lawyer s nightmare, however, is the video which shows our client weaving from one side of the highway to the other, falling flat on his face when he gets out of the car, and admitting to drinking huge quantities of whiskey. How many times have you heard this on the video: I can t do that when I am sober. How do you keep that video out? The Fifth Amendment only excludes testimonial evidence. Physical evidence how a person performs on the standardized field sobriety tests is generally not excludable under the federal standard. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 603 (1990). A couple of times, when I had no better argument for excluding a case-killing video, I relied on Article I 10 of the Texas Constitution. I argue that the Texas Constitution is broader than its federal counterpart, because it says that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. To me, forcing a person to stand in front of a video camera and perform tests certainly compels him to give evidence against himself. Under the plain language of our constitution it seems immaterial whether that evidence is testimonial or not. Be aware that this argument has been squarely rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W. 2d 76, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), although that case can arguably be distinguished because it was decided some two years before Heitman changed the way the courts analyze state constitutional claims. k. Cruel Or Unusual. The Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution prevents cruel and unusual punishment, whatever that means. Well, whatever it means, it sounds linguistically different than the cruel or unusual punishment that is prohibited by Article I, 13 of the Texas Constitution. This argument has been frequently made, but, to date, never successfully. The court of criminal appeals insists that the two clauses mean the same. E.g., Lawton v. State, 913 S.W. 2d 542, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In another case the court did not reject the argument that or is different than and, but simply found that, assuming they were different, the Texas death penalty scheme is neither cruel nor unusual. Anderson v. State, 932 S.W. 2d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Still, it is an argument that I continue to make and advise other people to make in the hopes that some distinction will be some day be recognized. II. RULE 101(d) When The Rules Don t Apply 9

16 (1) Rules not applicable in certain proceedings. These rules, except with respect to privileges, do not apply in the following situations: (A) the determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under Rule A. Hearsay Is Admissible * * * * * In Granados v. State, 85 S.W. 3d 217, (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the court of criminal appeals held that the rules of evidence do not apply at suppression hearings, because these hearings involve the determination of questions of fact preliminary to the admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it admitted testimony from one police officer about what he had heard from another officer, who had talked to still another person. B. Personal Knowledge Is Not Required In Belcher v. State, appellant argued that the officer was not competent as a witness under Rule 601 because he had no personal recollection of the events in question. The court of appeals disagreed, holding, among other things, that the trial court properly admitted this testimony because the rules of evidence do not apply at a suppression hearing. 244 S.W. 3d 531, 542 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) III. RULE 103(a) Preserving Error (a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context. When the court hears objections to offered evidence out of the presence of the jury and rules that such evidence be admitted, such objections shall be deemed to apply to such evidence when it is admitted before the jury without the necessity of repeating those objections. (2) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context 10

17 within which questions were asked. A. TEX. R. APP. PROC. Rule 33.1(a): Timely, Specific, Ruled-Upon Objections (a) In General. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that: TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). a. the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that: (A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context; and (B) complied with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil or Criminal Evidence or the Texas Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure; and (2) the trial court: (A) ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly; or (B) refused to rule on the request, objection, or motion, and the complaining party objected to the refusal. B. Important Preservation Cases 1. As regards specificity, all a party has to do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it. Lankston v. State, 827 S.W. 2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)(emphasis supplied). 2. The objection must be timely; that is, the defense must have objected to the evidence, if possible, before it was actually admitted. If this was not possible, the defense must have objected as soon as the objectionable nature of the evidence became apparent and must have moved to strike the evidence, that is, to have it removed from the body of evidence the jury is allowed to consider. Ethington v. State, 819 S.W. 2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)(emphasis supplied). 3. [O]ur system may be thought to contain rules of three distinct kinds: (1) absolute requirements and prohibitions; (2) rights of litigants which must be implemented 11

18 by the system unless expressly waived; and (3) rights of litigants which are to be implemented upon request. The law of procedural default applies only to the last category. Marin v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 275, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 4. Both Rules 33.1 and 103 are judge-protecting rules of error preservation. The party complaining on appeal must have done everything necessary at trial to bring to the trial court s attention the applicable rule of evidence and its proper application. In this case, appellant argued at trial that the evidence was admissible on hearsay grounds. On appeal, he argued that the Confrontation Clause required its admission. An objection on hearsay does not preserve error on Confrontation Clause grounds. Reyna v. State, 168 S.W. 3d 173, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 5. If your only objection at trial is hearsay, you cannot later complain on appeal that this evidence violated the defendant s confrontation rights. Lopez v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). C. Exceptional Situations 1. Pre-trial motions. If the court sets a pretrial hearing in compliance with article of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, any such preliminary matters not raised or filed seven days before the hearing will not thereafter be allowed to be raised or filed, except by permission of the court for good cause shown; provided that the defendant shall have sufficient notice of such hearing to allow him not less than 10 days in which to raise or file such preliminary matters. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art (2). 2. Charging instrument error. If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding. Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to an indictment or information be made at an earlier time in compliance with Article of this code. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(b); See also Cook v. State, 902 S.W. 2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)(indictment that did not name the defendant was fundamentally defective). 3. Jury charge error. 12

19 In Almanza v. State, 686 S.W. 2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), the court held that two different standards apply to jury charge error, depending on whether the error was subject to objection. If there was a timely objection, the error is reversible if it caused appellant some harm. If no proper objection was made, the error is reversible only if the error caused appellant egregious harm. Id. at Rule 103(d): Fundamental error. TEX. R. EVID. 103(d). In a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court. 5. Blue v. State. a. In Blue v. State, four judges of the court of criminal appeals relied on Rule 103(d) of the Texas Rules of Evidence and the Marin case to hold that comments of the trial judge that tainted appellant s presumption of innocence were fundamental error of constitutional dimension requiring no objection. 41 S.W. 3d 129, (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A fifth member of the court Judge Keasler reached the same result, but relied, not on Rule 103(d), but instead on Marin to find that appellant was denied his right to an impartial judge. Id. at 138 (Keasler, J., concurring). b. Is Blue binding precedent? See Jasper v. State, 61 S.W. 3d 413, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)(suggesting that the Court might not be bound to follow the plurality decision in Blue); see also Rabago v. State, 75 S.W. 3d 561, 563 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2002, pet. ref d)( Because there is no majority opinion in Blue, it is not binding precedent. ). 6. Limiting instructions. a. When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly; but, in the absence of such request the court's action in admitting such evidence without limitation shall not be a ground for complaint on appeal. TEX. R. EVID. 105(a). b. Rankin v. State, 974 S.W. 2d 707, 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 13

20 1998)(Rule 105 requires a limiting instruction, upon proper request, when evidence is admitted). c. If a defendant fails to request a limiting instruction at the time the evidence is admitted, the evidence is admitted for all purposes; therefore, a limiting instruction after the evidence has closed in the jury instruction is not warranted. Hammock v. State, 46 S.W. 3d 889, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). D. Objections Outside The Jury s Presence. 1. Rule 103(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that, if the court hears and rules on objections outside the presence of the jury, the objections need not be repeated in the jury s presence. 2. Appellant s complaint was not a motion in limine but was instead a timely and specific objection that was ruled on by the court outside the presence of the jury. Error was preserved under Rule 103(a). Gueder v. State, 115 S.W. 3d 11, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 3. When a defendant challenges the admissibility of certain evidence in a hearing outside the presence of the jury, he need not renew his objection when the evidence is offered at trial in order to preserve his complaint for review. However, if at trial the defendant states he has no objection when the evidence is offered, he waives his admissibility complaint. Welch v. State, 993 S.W. 2d 690, 694 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1999, no pet.)(citations omitted). E. Hearings Outside The Jury s Presence. 1. Article of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits the trial court to set pre-trial hearings before the trial on the merits. The trial court has discretion to set any criminal case for a pre-trial hearing before it is set for trial upon its merits. The purpose of the pre-trial hearing is to enable the judge to dispose of certain matters prior to trial and thus avoid delays during the trial. Johnson v. Texas, 803 S.W.2d 272, 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S (1991). 2. As a general rule, the court is not required to conduct pre-trial hearings. Moore v. State, 700 S.W. 2d 193, 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Article is not a mandatory statute, but is one directed to the court s discretion. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W. 2d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). 3. In at least three instances, however, Rule 104(c) of the Texas Rules of 14

CAPITAL MURDER DEFENSE COURSE PART I TRIAL OF A CAPITAL MURDER CASE TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PROJECT SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW HOUSTON, TEXAS

CAPITAL MURDER DEFENSE COURSE PART I TRIAL OF A CAPITAL MURDER CASE TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PROJECT SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW HOUSTON, TEXAS CAPITAL MURDER DEFENSE COURSE PART I TRIAL OF A CAPITAL MURDER CASE TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PROJECT SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW HOUSTON, TEXAS JULY 25-26, 1996 Mark Stevens 310 S. St. Mary's Street,

More information

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant

More information

Criminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws.

Criminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Criminal Law Month Content Skills August Introduction to law Define the term jurisprudence. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Discuss the relationship between laws and values. Give

More information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A

More information

NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.9 OF DALLAS

More information

C RIMINAL LAW O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS

C RIMINAL LAW O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 : O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS A C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 Prepared

More information

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00125-CV CHRISTOPHER EDOMWANDE APPELLANT V. JULIO GAZA & SANDRA F. GAZA APPELLEES ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

More information

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13.A Procedure Speedy Trial (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) 29-1207. Trial within six

More information

Criminal Justice 101 (Part II) Grand Jury, Trial, & Sentencing. The Charging Decision. Grand Jury 5/22/2014. Misdemeanors v.

Criminal Justice 101 (Part II) Grand Jury, Trial, & Sentencing. The Charging Decision. Grand Jury 5/22/2014. Misdemeanors v. Criminal Justice 101 (Part II) Grand Jury, Trial, & Sentencing Presented at: Office of the Attorney General 2014 Texas Crime Victim s Services Conference Transformations: Building Community Networks Grand

More information

Facts for. Federal Criminal Defendants

Facts for. Federal Criminal Defendants Facts for Federal Criminal Defendants FACTS FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS I. INTRODUCTION The following is a short summary of what will happen to you if you are charged in a federal criminal case. This

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS DAVID MORALES, Appellant, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-05-00201-CR Appeal from the 409th District Court of El Paso County,

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Appellant s Motion for Rehearing Overruled, Opinion of April 19, 2001, Withdrawn, Affirmed and Corrected Opinion filed August 9, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-99-01124-CR EMI GUTIERREZ

More information

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would

More information

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under Page 1 Instruction 5.310 The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (in the same complaint which charges the defendant with operating a motor

More information

DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS

DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed April 12, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-99-00894-CR MYRNA DURON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County,

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) Applicable to All Counties to cases initiated by indictment on or after September

More information

Decades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now

Decades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now Criminal Court Felonies The U.S. has the highest rate of felony conviction and imprisonment of any industrialized nation. A felony crime is more serious than a misdemeanor, but the same offense can be

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00020-CR EX PARTE DIMAS ROJAS MARTINEZ ---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ----------

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 48 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 48 1 SUBCHAPTER IX. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. Article 48. Discovery in the Superior Court. 15A-901. Application of Article. This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court. (1973,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNCTION OF A.G. O P I N I O N No. 08-12-00174-CV Appeal from 171st District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC # 2012-DVC02875)

More information

and IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS

and IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS IN THE 242 ND DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY, TEXAS and IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS ) Writ Nos. 51,824 01, -02, -03, -04 ) (Trial Court Cause Nos. ) B-3340-9907-CR,

More information

No. 05-12-00111-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS. JANET MARIE VICKERS, Appellant

No. 05-12-00111-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS. JANET MARIE VICKERS, Appellant The State Requests Oral Argument Only If Appellant Argues No. 05-12-00111-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS JANET MARIE VICKERS, Appellant I (J) )> 7 _L> --i N

More information

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00109-CR MICHAEL ANTHONY MCGRUDER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O

More information

CHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE By Gino L. DiVito, Retired Justice, Illinois Appellate Court, Partner, Quinlan & Crisham, Ltd.; Chicago Commencement of Prosecution In Illinois, the prosecution of a criminal

More information

Glossary of Court-related Terms

Glossary of Court-related Terms Glossary of Court-related Terms Acquittal Adjudication Appeal Arraignment Arrest Bail Bailiff Beyond a reasonable doubt Burden of proof Capital offense Certification Charge Circumstantial evidence Citation

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

5 Discovery, Defenses, and Pretrial Motions

5 Discovery, Defenses, and Pretrial Motions 5 Discovery, Defenses, and Pretrial Motions I. Overview 5.1 II. Time Limits and Considerations A. Misdemeanor Charges 5.2 B. Felony Charges 5.3 C. Motions 5.4 Daniel J. Larin Edwin R. Leonard III. Discovery

More information

No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Generally, issues not raised before the district court, even constitutional

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR 12 566449 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) LONNIE CAGE ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant )

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR 12 566449 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) LONNIE CAGE ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR 12 566449 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) LONNIE CAGE ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant ) John P. O Donnell, J.:

More information

COMMENTS OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE. LAWYERS on proposed stylistic changes to Federal Rules of.evidence Rule 401

COMMENTS OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE. LAWYERS on proposed stylistic changes to Federal Rules of.evidence Rule 401 09-EV-01 9 COMMENTS OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE. LAWYERS on proposed stylistic changes to Federal Rules of.evidence Rule 401 ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCY AND ITS ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCY AND LIMITS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC2014-000424-001 DT 01/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC2014-000424-001 DT 01/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Filed *** 01/26/2015 8:00 AM THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN STATE OF ARIZONA CLERK OF THE COURT J. Eaton Deputy GARY L SHUPE v. MONICA RENEE JONES (001) JEAN JACQUES CABOU

More information

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition) Chapter 813 2013 EDITION Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty 813.011 Felony driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 7, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-001465-MR LAMONT ROBERTS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARTIN

More information

TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS. Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No

TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS. Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS By Henry J. Bemporad Deputy Federal Public Defender Western District of Texas Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No one

More information

MARK PEREZ, APPELLANT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE STATE S BRIEF

MARK PEREZ, APPELLANT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE STATE S BRIEF Nos. 05-11-01575-CR and 05-11-01576-CR The State Waives Oral Argument 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/04/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS MARK

More information

The Federal Criminal Process

The Federal Criminal Process Federal Public Defender W.D. Michigan The Federal Criminal Process INTRODUCTION The following summary of the federal criminal process is intended to provide you with a general overview of how your case

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40135 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN L. JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Opinion No. 60 Filed: November 12, 2013 Stephen W. Kenyon,

More information

Adult Probation: Terms, Conditions and Revocation

Adult Probation: Terms, Conditions and Revocation Adult Probation: Terms, Conditions and Revocation Mandatory Conditions of Community Supervision Restitution Mandatory that it be pronounced at sentencing Sauceda v. State, 309 S.W. 3 rd 767 (Amarillo Ct

More information

NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS

NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998

More information

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps:

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR APPEAL AND YOUR LAWYER A Guide Prepared by the Office of the Appellate Defender 1. WHO IS MY LAWYER? Your lawyer s name is on the notice that came with this guide. The

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas

More information

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an

More information

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Accused: Acquittal: Adjudication: Admissible Evidence: Affidavit: Alford Doctrine: Appeal:

More information

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 13-CT-226. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CTF-18039-12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 13-CT-226. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CTF-18039-12) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40618 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40618 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40618 LARRY DEAN CORWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 386 Filed: February 20, 2014 Stephen

More information

Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court

Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Rule 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally (A) Precedence. Criminal cases have precedence over civil actions. (B) Pretrial. The court, on its own initiative

More information

CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985

CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 Subchapter 6.000 General Provisions Rule 6.001 Scope; Applicability of Civil Rules; Superseded Rules and Statutes (A) Felony Cases. The rules

More information

The Court Process. Understanding the criminal justice process

The Court Process. Understanding the criminal justice process Understanding the criminal justice process Introduction Missouri law establishes certain guarantees to crime victims, including participation in the criminal justice system. Victims can empower themselves

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. LANCE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. LANCE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent. FILED: November, 01 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON LANCE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent. Office of Administrative Hearings 0 A

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNSEL: THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. JOSEPH COOPERMAN, Respondent/Appellee. No. CV-12-0319-PR Filed August 5, 2013 Special Action from the

More information

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia Case 1:11-cr-00326-SCJ-JFK Document 119-1 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 16 GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,

More information

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition) Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018

More information

T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O C O URT

T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O C O URT T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT A G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT Prepared and distributed as a Public Service by the

More information

31.9 Double Jeopardy and Mistrials

31.9 Double Jeopardy and Mistrials 31.9 Double Jeopardy and Mistrials A. In General The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes retrial of defendants in some instances where the proceedings are terminated

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent

More information

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

More information

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,

More information

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi I. DUI Cannabis or Drugs FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS A. Causal connection when unlawful substances

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY

More information

JUROR S MANUAL (Prepared by the State Bar of Michigan)

JUROR S MANUAL (Prepared by the State Bar of Michigan) JUROR S MANUAL (Prepared by the State Bar of Michigan) Your Role as a Juror You ve heard the term jury of one s peers. In our country the job of determining the facts and reaching a just decision rests,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session STEVE EDWARD HOUSTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Giles County No. 9082 Robert L. Jones,

More information

CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET PRO BONO PROJECT FOR THE SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION

CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET PRO BONO PROJECT FOR THE SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET FOR THE PRO BONO PROJECT SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION AND THE HOUSTON BAR ASSOCIATION APPELLATE SECTION IN THE

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-039-CR CASEY J. MOORE APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM

More information

INTRODUCTION DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?

INTRODUCTION DO YOU NEED A LAWYER? INTRODUCTION The purpose of this handbook is to provide answers to some very basic questions that inmates or inmates families might have regarding the processes of the criminal justice system. In no way

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 133515-U. No. 1-13-3515 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 133515-U. No. 1-13-3515 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 133515-U FIRST DIVISION November 9, 2015 No. 1-13-3515 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII. J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII. J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII August 8, 2011 J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES INDEX 1 DUTY OF JUDGE 2

More information

5/21/2010 A NEW OBLIGATION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

5/21/2010 A NEW OBLIGATION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS A NEW OBLIGATION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS A practicing attorney for over 17 years, Jorge G. Aristotelidis is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a former

More information

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET BOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC Former Police & Investigators Springfield Offices: 6354 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 Springfield, Virginia 22152 Telephone: 703.926.3900 Facsimile: 800.927.6038

More information

VOIR DIRE 2/11/2015 STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER

VOIR DIRE 2/11/2015 STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE VOIR DIRE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER 3. DESELECTION (TO MAKE THE JURY = SIT THERE & BE QUIET) 4. SOME QUESTIONS

More information

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties.

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. 42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. (1) (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of alcohol

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01186-CR. LAURA SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01186-CR. LAURA SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ABATE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed February 4, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01186-CR LAURA SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from

More information

NO. 05-11-00657-CR. GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW

NO. 05-11-00657-CR. GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW NO. 05-11-00657-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 03/23/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS I. Purpose of This Handbook The purpose of this handbook is to acquaint trial jurors with the general nature and importance of their

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: June 18, 2015 104790 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GREGORY LEE,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT Case 8:15-cr-00244-SDM-AEP Document 3 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc DENNIS WAYNE CANION, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-04-0243-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 04-0036 THE HONORABLE DAVID R. COLE, )

More information

Federal Criminal Court

Federal Criminal Court No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled

More information

No. 11-2920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM HEISER, Appellant

No. 11-2920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM HEISER, Appellant JORDAN, Circuit Judge. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11-2920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM HEISER, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District

More information

No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. FRED ANDERSON, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. FRED ANDERSON, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS FRED ANDERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL N. LOPEZ, No. 606, 2013 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-01390-CR. LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-01390-CR. LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal

More information

LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS

LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS TRIBAL COURT Chapter 7 Appellate Procedures Court Rule Adopted 4/7/2002 Appellate Procedures Page 1 of 12 Chapter 7 Appellate Procedures Table of Contents 7.000

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 11/01/2013 "See News Release 062 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41952 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41952 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41952 MICHAEL T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 634 Filed: September 16, 2015 Stephen

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634

More information

Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses

Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses Office of the Attorney General Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses MARCH 2009 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Criminal Law Division Special Prosecutions Unit Telephone: (208) 332-3096 Fax: (208)

More information

Confrontation in Domestic Violence Litigation: What Every New Attorney Should Know about the Necessity of Victim Participation

Confrontation in Domestic Violence Litigation: What Every New Attorney Should Know about the Necessity of Victim Participation Confrontation in Domestic Violence Litigation: What Every New Attorney Should Know about the Necessity of Victim Participation By: Michael D. Dean i Those experienced in domestic violence litigation are

More information

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-10-00205-CR RAY BOYD ASHLOCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court Fannin

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00223-CV In re The State of Texas ex rel. Jennifer A. Tharp ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N In this original

More information

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6)

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6) NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 1993-94/7 Candor to Tribunal: Use of Questionable Evidence In Criminal Defense January 27, 1994 RULE REFERENCES: *Rule 1.2 *Rule 1.2(a) *Rule

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-0912 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-0912 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-0912 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT Rule 7 Mandatory Appeal 2 nd Circuit District Division - Lebanon Bruce E. Kenna,

More information