September 2011

Under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code, self-defense is provided as a justification to the offense of murder (among others).  Chapter 9 makes clear that if a fact-finder believes a defendant’s actions are justified, the fact-finder may not convict for an offense based on those self-defense actions.  In essence, a defendant that pleads self-defense is telling the fact-finder that he intentionally performed certain actions in order to protect himself against the unlawful actions of another.  So…if the defendant intentionally performed the self-defensive actions, can self-defense be applied to an offense like manslaughter that requires “reckless” conduct vice intentional?

In Alonzo v. State, the 13th District Court of Appeals (Corpus Christie) “believed it is illogical for a defendant to argue self-defense when charged with an offense whose requisite mental state is recklessness.”  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, disagrees, explaining that “there is nothing in Penal Code Section 2.03 or Chapter 9 that limits justification defenses to intentional or knowing crimes, nor do we have a reason to infer such a limitation.” The CCA notes that limiting self-defense to only intentional or knowing crimes could encourage prosecutors to charge manslaughter (a reckless offense) vice murder when there is a self-defense issue, because self-defense would be inapplicable.

Judge Womack explains that “by arguing self-defense, a defendant is arguing that his actions were justified, and therefore he did not act recklessly.” So really, it’s just another way to disprove the charged offense.

Of course, a defendant cannot argue self-defense in the face of a murder charge and then at the same time request a lesser-included instruction on manslaughter. The CCA made sure not to disrupt prior caselaw holding such. But the overarching takeaway from Alonzo is that a defendant that is acquitted of a murder charged based on self-defense CANNOT be convicted of the LIO of manslaughter.

The CCA reversed the decision of the 13th Court and remanded the case for a harm analysis.  Presiding Judge Keller concurred. Alonzo Concurrence

Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Coronado v. State.

[The CCA] granted review of the case to determine whether the videotape procedures set out in [the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 38.071, Section 2, including the use of written interrogatories in lieu of live testimony and cross-examination, satisfy the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation...

The case involved a six year-old child sexual abuse victim (who was three years-old when the abuse began) that the trial court determined was "unavailable" to testify in court because of the likelihood that she would suffer severe emotional trauma upon seeing the defendant.  Accordingly, the trial court allowed a neutral child interviewer to videotape an interview pursuant to Article 38.071, Section 2.  The defense counsel agreed to this procedure and propounded numerous questions for the interviewer to ask.  The defense counsel also agreed to allow the interviewer to ask follow-up questions that she deemed appropriate.  At trial, the videotaped testimony of the child was played to the jury in lieu of any live testimony by the victim.

The videotape procedures of Article 38.071, Section 2, were enacted prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington.  Since that time, there has been a marked shift in confrontation clause jurisprudence in favor of a strict requirement of face-to-face live confrontation.  The lower appellate court, however, failed to cite (or even mention) the Crawford line of cases in its analysis.  The CCA, on the other hand, explained:

We are unable to find any post-Crawford precedent from any jurisdiction that states, or even suggests, that a list of written interrogatories, posed by a forensic examiner to a child in an ex parte interview, is a constitutional substitute for live cross-examination and confrontation...There was no "rigorous adversarial testing" of [the child victim's] testimonial statements by that greatest legal engine for uncovering the truth: contemporaneous cross-examination.  The written-interrogatories procedure used in this case does not pass muster under our English common-law adversarial system or our United States Constitution.

The CCA's reluctance to overturn this case was apparent.  On page 2 of the opinion, Judge Cochran writes, "On federal constitutional matters, we are obliged to follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court regardless of our own notions."

Judge Hervey concurred.  While she agreed with the majority that the procedure used in this case was unconstitutional, she wrote separately to express her opinion that the defendant's right to confrontation should be balanced with the societal interest in protecting child sexual abuse victims.  She would not foreclose the possibility of allowing testimony via closed circuit television where the witness would testify in a separate room, but where the victim could still see the defendant and the jury.

Presiding Judge Keller dissented.  In a well-reasoned opinion, she explains why she believes that the confrontation clause was not violated in this case.  She calls this a "close case," but she would have affirmed.

In United States v. Soto, a case decided last month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) affirmed appellant's conviction for unlawfully transporting an illegal alien.  The court admitted that this was a close case, but ultimately affirmed the ruling of the trial court denying the appellant's motion to suppress.

Facts:  Immigration case.  Upon seeing Border Patrol agents, a passenger in appellant's vehicle, exhibited a look of shock and immediately ducked down and slumped back, out of the agents’ sight. (The Court held that the only plausible explanation for this behavior is that the passenger was attempting to hide from the agents.)  Adding to the agents’ suspicion, when they pulled up alongside appellant's vehicle, the passenger's darkly tinted rear window, which was halfway down when the agents first saw it, had been completely rolled up.  Finally, the agents made their observations sixty miles from the border on a route known for illegal alien trafficking.
The 5th Circuit applied the Supreme Court standard for reasonable suspicion that was laid out in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), wherein the Court held,

factors that may be considered in determining reasonable suspicion include: (1) the area’s proximity to the border; (2) characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agents’ experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) behavior of the driver; (6) particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking of aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number of passengers and their appearance and behavior.

Explaining that no single factor is determinative in this test, the court held that under the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the conduct witnessed by the Border Patrol agents was sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to justify the traffic stop.

This month's Texas Bar Journal alerts us to a few new criminal laws in Texas that our elected officials have just added to the books.  Below are some of the more interesting (imo) additions:

Bath Salts - House Bill 2118 outlaws the possession of bath salts, or the chemicals contained in bath salts.  Apparently, folks were using bath salts as alternatives to cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, and methamphetamine.  This is now a felony offense.

Spice - Senate Bill 331similarly bans the possession of synthetic marijuana (i.e. "K2" or "Spice").  Depending on the quantity of the substance possessed, this new offense will be a Class B misdemeanor up to a first-degree felony.

Sexting for Minors - Under Senate Bill 407, Texas teenagers that send naked photographs via text message will no longer be deemed to have sent "child pornography."  Sexting will now be considered a Class C misdemeanor for a first offense.

In State v. Banda, the Third District Court of Appeals (Austin) decided a case at the end of last month addressing an issue regarding a discovery violation by the State.  The opinion addresses a key issue: what does a court do to remedy a discovery violation?  Often, the primary consideration is not whether a violation occurred, but what a court should do about it.

Let’s review the law on discovery:

Brady v. Maryland – A prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence if it is material to either guilt or punishment, including impeachment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (describing Brady parameters in Texas).

Under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, Brady breaks down to two duties related to pretrial disclosure of evidence by the State:
1) Disclose all favorable, material evidence in her possession.
2) Preserve and make available to the defendant any favorable, material physical evidence that the accused cannot otherwise obtain and that may be material to his defense.

See also CCP art. 39.14; Whitchurch v State, 650 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (no general defense right of discovery in Texas). BUT, see also Nielsen v. State, 836 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1992, pet. Ref’d) (The prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence regardless of whether the defense files a discovery motion requesting the material. But even if the evidence is requested, the State does not have to disclose it unless it is also material to the defense.)
Though a prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, a prosecutor’s open file policy is generally sufficient to comply with the prosecutor’s Brady obligation. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).

As stated above, often the primary consideration for the trial court is not whether a Brady violation occurred, but what a court should do about it.  In Banda, the trial court decided that the State’s failure to comply with a court order on discovery was grounds for the court to dismiss the State’s case with prejudice to refile.  The appellate court did not focus on whether a discovery violation had occurred – it technically had.  The appellate court’s focus was on the fact that the trial court dismissed the State’s case without prejudice as a result of the violation.  The Court found that absent constitutional or statutory authorization a trial court cannot dismiss a prosecution except on the motion of the prosecuting attorney and that the trial court does not have general authority to dismiss the indictment without prejudice in absence of the State’s consent.  State v. Pambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365, 366, 370 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2005); State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).  In Banda’s case there were no circumstances existing that would allow the court to make such a dismissal (even given the discovery order violation).

Ultimately, the Court held that “failure to comply with court orders on discovery may warrant suppression of the evidence in question, but discovery abuse is not recognized in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as a basis for dismissing the case with prejudice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 39.14 (West Supp. 2010)”. Id. at page 3.

Banda shows defense attorneys that discovery violations are extremely important and can be effective to win a case but only as long as the attack is not misplaced on attempting to get the court to dismiss the case.