October 2016

Can a Roommate Who is Not on the Lease be Convicted of Burglary of His or Her Own Residence?

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that a roommate, who is not a co-tenant on the lease, could be convicted of burglary into his or her own residence. The key issue facing the Court was whether Appellant Dewan Morgan was an owner of the apartment he was residing in at the time of the criminal act.

In order to commit a Burglary of a Habitation, a person “without the effective consent of the owner (a) enters a habitation with intent to commit an assault or (b) enters a habitation and commits or attempts to commit an assault.” Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). An “‘owner’ means a person who has title of the property, possession of the property, or a greater right to possession of the property than the person charged.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(35).

Morgan v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

The Facts – Trial Court Found Appellant was NOT Considered an Owner

Dewan Morgan moved in with his girlfriend, Regina, in November of 2012. Regina gave Dewan Morgan a key to the apartment, but did not add his name to the lease. She mostly paid the bills and expenses with occasional help from Appellant. Additionally, Appellant kept his personal items at the apartment.

On June 20, 2013, Morgan and Regina got into an argument. Regina did not want Morgan back in the apartment, so she locked the deadbolt from inside the apartment so that Morgan could not get in with his key. He knocked on the door and rang the doorbell, but Regina did not open the door. Morgan threw a rock into a side window, which broke the window, and then began kicking in the door. He was able to gain entry into the apartment, and when he went inside he grabbed Regina, pushed her to the bed, bit her on the side of her left breast, punched her, and choked her. The police arrived and arrested Morgan. The jury found Morgan guilty of Burglary of a Habitation - a 2nd Degree Felony.

The Court of Appeals Reversed and Found Appellant was an Owner and Could Not Commit Burglary

The Second Court of Appeals held that there was “no evidence of the absence of ‘the owners’ consent” because Appellant was a co-tenant, thus an owner of the apartment. The court erroneously relied on Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 21.08, which provides a definition of an owner for indictment purposes. Under that definition, the court held that because Appellant lived in the apartment and kept his belongings inside it, he was also an owner of the apartment. Additionally, there was no evidence that his tenancy was terminated, thus he had the right to occupy and control his apartment.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reverses — Holds Appellant was Not an Owner and Did Not Have Effective Consent to Enter the Apartment

The CCA followed the Freeman standard to determine ownership: “A person’s ‘right to possession’ must be measured at the time of the accused’s alleged criminal act.” Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The Court also extended this application to effective consent and concluded that “if a person’s status as ‘owner’ is measured at the time of the criminal act, then so is giving, or removing, of the effective consent to enter.” Essentially, the Court takes a snapshot of the criminal action and determines effective consent in only that instance.

The CCA first analyzed who the owner of the apartment was. It quickly rejected reliance on Article 21.08 because it is “only applicable in evaluating the sufficiency of an indictment.” Instead, the Court looked to the Penal Code’s definition that was included in the jury charge, as noted above. The Court said the “Penal Code’s definition of ‘owner’ clearly indicates that a defendant who has some, but less, right to control a habitation than the alleged owner may be prosecuted for burglary.”

The key concern for the Court was whether Regina’s right to possess the property was greater than Appellant's at the time of the criminal act. The Court considered that only Regina’s name was on the lease, that she paid the rent, and that she gave Appellant a key and she could take it away. Ultimately, Regina’s possession of the apartment was greater than Appellant’s, which did not give Appellant equal ownership rights. The Court held that at the time of the offense, Regina’s right to possess the apartment trumped Appellant’s and that only she was the owner at the time of the criminal act.

The CCA next analyzed whether there was no effective consent to enter. Again, the Court analyzed effective consent only in the snapshot of when the criminal act occurred. Even though Regina testified at trial that she did not intend to permanently withhold consent to enter and it was only temporary, the Court found that the temporary revocation of consent during the criminal act was “sufficient to establish the absence of effective consent.” When Regina locked Morgan out of the apartment during their argument, the Court found it clear that Regina did not want Morgan to enter the apartment. Thus, the CCA held that Morgan did not have effective consent to enter the apartment.

The CCA’s Snapshot Analysis – Evidence is Legally Sufficient to Support the Jury’s Guilty Verdict

The CCA considered the factors during the time of the crime and held that the jury was authorized to find that Regina was the owner of the apartment because she had a greater right to possession of the apartment than Appellant, and at the time Appellant entered the apartment, he did so without the effective consent of Regina and with the intent to assault her.

Officers Are Justified in Stopping Vehicles to Render Emergency Aid Making Evidence Found in the Process Fair Game

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dealing with the emergency-aid warrant exception and whether that exception extends to vehicular stops. The issue facing the court was whether a traffic stop of Appellant Toussaint to warn him that a gang member had ordered a hit on him was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the suppression order from the trial court holding that the emergency aid exception did justify the stop because this was a proper exigent circumstance.

US v. Toussaint (5th Circuit - 2016)

The Facts—Trial Court Found the Exigent Circumstances Had Expired

An FBI agent monitoring a wiretap overheard a suspected gang-member order his associate to kill Toussaint who could be found in a specific neighborhood driving a specific car, a silver Infiniti. Immediately the agent contacted a local police officer who met with several other officers to determine the plan to locate and warn Toussaint of the hit. The officers drive to the specified neighborhood and search for silver Infinities until they find one with an occupant leaving the neighborhood. The officers follow the vehicle, observe the driver, Toussaint, speeding and pull him over. Once pulled over Toussaint flees the officers on foot until he was caught and placed under arrest. During a search of Toussaint incident to arrest officers found a pistol and a bag of crack cocaine. The amount of time between the FBI agent overhearing the initial threat and Toussaint’s arrest was about 45 minutes.

Toussaint was charged with drug and firearm violations. Toussaint filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop arguing that the stop was not justified. The trial court granted Toussaint’s motion to suppress finding that the exigency of the emergency had expired by the time the officers stopped Toussaint.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Trial Courts Decision—Holding the Emergency-Aid Exception Applied in this Case and the Exigency Had Not Expired

The court held that the emergency-aid exception extends to vehicular stops when under the circumstances of the need to assist persons with serious injuries or threatened with serious injury. The emergency aid exception allows officers to conduct warrantless searches or seizures when there is a need to assist persons with serious injuries or threatened with a serious injury. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 at 483. Under this exception, officers can enter areas they otherwise are not allowed in order to help someone. While the majority of such cases involve warrantless entries into homes, the court determined that there is no logical reason to not extend the exception to vehicular stops. Additionally, looking to reasonableness, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment,” the court stated “the benevolent act of trying to notify a driver that his life is in danger epitomizes reasonableness.” Thus, the court held that the emergency aid exception can be used to justify a traffic stop under proper exigent circumstances.

Then, the court held that the exception applied in this case and officers were justified in stopping Toussaint. The court stated that trial courts must examine objective facts of the circumstance in determining whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for believing exigency actually existed. The officers’ subjective motivations are never relevant in the determination. When the officers received what all parties agreed was a credible threat against Toussaint, who was located in a specific neighborhood and driving a specific vehicle, the court held it was reasonable for the officers to believe there was a serious threat on Toussaint’s life. Further, that exigency still existed at the time of the stop because the threat on Toussaint’s life had not ended within the 45 minutes it took officers to locate him and warn him. Since the stop was justified the search was proper and evidence was legally obtained because it would be contrary to the needs of law enforcement to force officers to ignore evidence found when they stop vehicles to render emergency aid.

In conclusion, the court held that the emergency aid exception extends to vehicular stops and that here, the stop of Toussaint was justified under this exception because there was a serious threat on his life. Accordingly, the court reversed the suppression order because the trial court was improper in granting the motion.

Last week I wrote about things that every parent needs to know about kids and drugs. Today, I want to share with you a valuable resource to use if your child has gotten involved in drugs in Tarrant County. If your teenager has been charged in juvenile court with their first drug offense, you need to ask about the Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court Program.

The Basics of the Program

The Drug Court Program in Tarrant County was launched in 1999. It was the first of its kind in the State of Texas. It is a voluntary program aimed at first time juvenile drug offenders. According to Tom Zaback, a Tarrant County juvenile probation officer and the supervisor of the program, 80% of the participants in Drug Court graduate the program successfully.

Juveniles in the program, and their parents, are required to commit a lot to Drug Court. This commitment to the program leads to a commitment to change, which contributes significantly to juveniles graduating from Drug Court and kicking their drug problem. While in Drug Court, which lasts for six months, juveniles and their parents will work closely with a probation officer and drug counselors in classes and groups that are tailored to meet the individual needs of each child.

The Process of the Juvenile Drug Court Program

Cases are screened automatically by the probation officers assigned to Drug Court to determine kids who may be appropriate for the program. However, if your child has been charged with a drug offense and you feel this may be a good option for him, you can ask your intake probation officer about being considered for inclusion in Drug Court.

Once a juvenile has been identified for the program, one of the Drug Court probation officers will schedule an intake with that child and his parents. During the intake appointment, the probation officer will explain the requirements of the program, get a social history from the family, and have the juvenile to take a drug test. The juvenile must also submit to a drug assessment during the screening process. This assessment will help to determine the level of that child’s drug problem and the recommended level of treatment needed. At the end of the screening, the probation officer will make a recommendation about whether that child should be allowed into Drug Court.

If a juvenile is recommended for Drug Court, the case is then sent to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office Juvenile Unit for prosecution. The prosecutor will review the case and file the charges with the court. The Tarrant County Juvenile Court will then schedule the case for a drug court hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile must stipulate, or admit, to the charges. The judge will enter a judgment withheld, which means that the judge will note that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate the juvenile delinquent (or find him guilty), but will not, at that time, actually adjudicate the juvenile. The judge will then order him into the Drug Court Program.

Every juvenile in the program must come back to court for a judicial review at the 3-month mark and again at the end of the program. The purpose of this judicial review is for the judge to monitor the child’s progress in Drug Court. At the end of the six-month program, if the child has successfully completed all requirements, the judge will deny the prosecutor’s petition and order the child’s offense record to be sealed immediately. This is a huge benefit to the child because it means that he can honestly say to anyone asking in the future that he has not been charged or adjudicated for a drug offense. Sealing one’s record effectively erases it from existence.

The Requirements of the Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court Program

As I mentioned above, while in Drug Court, a kid will be required to work with a probation officer and drug counselor to resolve any problems that he is facing with regards to drugs. There are other conditions that a juvenile in the program is required to follow, which are similar to the conditions of traditional probation. Some of these conditions are: no drugs, go to school, be honest, and attend treatment regularly. If a kid violates the terms of his Drug Court agreement, a progress report will be sent to the judge. If it is determined that a juvenile has violated the terms of the program to the extent that he is kicked out, he will be required to return to court for a disposition hearing. At this court hearing, the judge will enter a finding that the juvenile is adjudicated of the drug offense and then proceed to determine the appropriate punishment, or disposition, for the drug violation. This may result in the child being placed on traditional probation, being ordered to attend an in-patient drug treatment program, or in extreme cases, being sentenced to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Additionally, a driver’s license suspension will usually be ordered.

The Tarrant County Juvenile Drug Court is a wonderful program designed to help kids who are charged with a first-time drug offense. Its purpose is to help juveniles work through their drug problems while giving them a second chance to keep their juvenile record intact. The program is very successful. It requires a high level of commitment from the juveniles and parents who are in it, but that commitment is rewarded with a true change in the behavior, attitude, and lifestyle of that child. If your child is struggling with drugs, it is worth asking whether the Tarrant County Drug Court Program can help.

What Every Parent Needs to Know About Drug Crimes and the Juvenile Justice Process

One of the most common way for teenagers to run afoul of the law is with drugs. Between peer pressure, synthetic drugs, and confusion over possession vs. ownership, there are many pitfalls surrounding the topic of drugs for kids. Many times, parents aren’t even aware their child has been exposed to drugs until that child is in trouble. Here are some basic things that every parents needs to know about kids and drugs before it’s too late.

Levels of Drug Offenses and Ranges of Punishment in Texas

In Texas, criminal offenses are divided into two major categories: Felonies and Misdemeanors, with felonies being the more serious. Except for possession of small amounts of marijuana or prescription drugs, all other drug offenses in Texas are felonies. This means that this is a very big deal if your child is arrested for drugs.

In the juvenile system, the punishment for misdemeanors ranges from nothing up to probation until that child’s 18th birthday. This probation can be served out at home. However, if appropriate, the court can order the child to a treatment facility, boys’ ranch, or some other kind of placement as part of the probation.

The punishment options for felonies in the juvenile system, like for misdemeanors, include doing nothing and probation up to a child’s 18th birthday (with or without placement outside of the home). For felonies, however, the court also can commit a child to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), which is the prison system in Texas for kids. A commitment to TJJD can last up until a child’s 19th birthday.

Synthetic Drugs - A Moving Target

Some of the most popular drugs in use today are synthetic or designer drugs. They go by a variety of nicknames including K2, bath salts, and Spice. These particular drugs are especially dangerous for a number of reasons. First, because they are a chemically altered variation of an illegal drug, they are legal in many cases. The legislature is still struggling to write the laws in such a way to criminalize all of these variations. As they make one chemical formula illegal, the chemists making these drugs alter it to escape prosecution. The law is making headway in this field, but it is a slow process. Because of this loophole, many of these synthetic drugs are legally sold in stores and over the internet. This makes it very easy for kids to get their hands on them.

The second reason why these drugs are particularly dangerous is because there is no way for a user to know what exactly is in the dose they are taking due to the rapidly changing chemical alterations that are being made to stay ahead of the law. The K2 your child takes today may be drastically different from the dose he took last week. There is also no way to know what side effects a specific chemical combination will have on a particular person or even the human body generally.

Part of the reason why these drugs are so popular with kids is because it is almost impossible to detect them. Because of the quickly changing chemical makeups of these drugs, it’s difficult to develop a drug test that can detect them all. Additionally, most parents have never heard of these drugs, which makes it easier for kids to get away with using them without their parents realizing what they are doing. This difficulty in detecting these drugs makes it more likely for kids to abuse these particular substances.

Prescription Drugs

Another category of drugs that has risen in popularity with teenagers is prescription drugs. These are used frequently by kids because they are easy to get their hands on. All they have to do is to go to the medicine cabinet at home and help themselves to whatever drugs are on the shelf. It doesn’t matter what the prescription is for or who it belongs to, it can be abused by kids. Teens have been known to sell and/or use pills prescribed for everything from ADD to depression to high blood pressure. When parents are unaware of the potential for kids to take these medicines, they are unlikely to secure them in order to keep them away from their teenagers. There have been several cases recently in Tarrant County where kids have been arrested at school for illegally selling or possessing a prescription drug that they took from their parents.

Ownership vs. Possession

When it comes to the drug laws, many kids are confused about the difference between ownership vs. possession. The law makes it illegal to possess drugs, regardless of who owns them. In fact, because drugs are considered “contraband,” the law doesn’t consider anyone to “own” them. Many kids, when busted for possessing drugs, will say, “But it’s not mine. I was just holding it for my friend.” They don’t understand that this means they are breaking the law, not their friend. Possession is defined as having care, custody, and control of something. This means that if you have the drugs in your pocket, you are in possession of them whether you “own” them or not.

Many “good kids” who wouldn’t dream of committing a crime will get caught holding drugs for their friends. Because they don’t understand that, if caught, they will be the guilty party and not their friend, they agree to hold onto the drugs for their buddy. It’s important that parents talk to their kids and explain this aspect of the law and the effect it can have.

Common Situations Where Kids Encounter Drugs

As I said at the beginning, drugs are a common reason why kids find themselves in the juvenile justice system and in alternative school for a period of time. It is a slippery slope that many teenagers find themselves on before they even realize what has happened. Below are some of the most common places for kids to encounter drugs.

1. School
Our kids spend a good deal of their time at school. By the time a kid gets into middle school and high school, a big chunk of their social circle is centered around school. School is also the place where they are likely to encounter a wide variety of different people. So, it’s no wonder, that it is also the place where many kids first encounter drugs. Not only do the school administrators and teachers have to be on the alert for drugs in school, but parents also need to be aware and be proactive in preparing kids to walk away when they encounter drug activity in the school environment.

2. Friends
When kids are in their preteen and teenage years, peer pressure is a very powerful force. Many kids are first exposed to drugs by their friends. Therefore, it is important, as parents, to know our kids’ friends and to be around them enough to pick up on whether these friends have a problem with drugs before our kids follow the same path. It’s also important for parents to consistently work on having that open communication with their kids so that, when the time comes, your kids can feel comfortable coming to talk to you about drugs and friends. Kids also need to know that if they are ever asked to hold onto to drugs for their friends, that they must say no, even if it means losing a friend over it.

3. Cars
Cars present a tricky scenario for kids when it comes to drugs. If your teen gets into the car with someone who has drugs, it is very possible that your child will get charged with the drugs if they are pulled over by police. When police and prosecutors are looking at who within a car to charge with possession of the drugs, they will many times look to the person who was sitting the closest to the drugs. If someone else in the car drops their stash of drugs near your child, then it may appear that your child was the one in possession.

This is a situation where parents need to talk to their children about how easy it is for them to be in a car with others and be held responsible for the actions of those other people. Kids need to be very careful about who they get into a car with. Parents need to prepare their kids to make the right decision when confronted with whether to get in a car with someone or not.

Conclusion

While it is common for otherwise “good kids” to get in trouble with the law when it comes to drugs, it is not inevitable. If parents take the time to educate themselves and their kids about the pitfalls that drugs can create, they can help their teenagers to avoid getting involved in the juvenile justice system.

About the Author

Christy Dunn is a writer and attorney licensed to practice in Texas. She was a prosecutor for 15 years. The last five years of her prosecutorial career was spent in the Juvenile Division of the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office. She has tried over 20 juvenile cases in Texas and multiple certification hearings. She was part of the multidisciplinary team that created a Project SAFeR.

Between the Driver and Two Passengers, who is in Possession of the Drugs Found in the Middle Compartment in Plain View?

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion dealing with legal sufficiency of evidence in the context of possession of a controlled substance when it was not found in the exclusive possession of the defendant. The issue facing the Court was whether Appellant Tate intentionally or knowingly possessed methamphetamine by exercising “control, management or care” of the methamphetamine and he knew it was methamphetamine. Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(39). The Court found that a rational jury could infer that the owner and driver of a vehicle possessed the controlled substance found in the vehicle in plain view even when there were two other passengers.

Tate v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

The Facts—Trial Court Found Sufficient Evidence

Tate was pulled over by Detective Beckham due to his outstanding warrants. When pulled over Tate had two passengers. Tate explained that he owned the vehicle but did not have any proof of ownership. Tate was arrested after officers confirmed his outstanding warrants. The police searched Tate, the two passengers, and their belongings, but did not find any weapons or contraband. During Officer Beckham’s inventory search of the vehicle, he found a syringe loaded with a substance later identified as .24 grams of methamphetamine. He found the syringe in "plain view" in a compartment underneath the air conditioner and heating controls.

Tate, the owner of the vehicle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At trial, Officer Beckham described the compartment as “directly to the right” of Tate, accessible to Tate and the front-seat passenger but not the backseat passenger. He also testified that even though he couldn’t tell exactly what the front-seat passenger was doing, he observed her moving a lot but never towards the compartment. Tate argued that one of the passengers put the syringe there when Tate was talking to Beckham at the rear of the vehicle. The trial court found Tate guilty, relying on Tate’s “self-purported” ownership of the vehicle and his proximity to the syringe.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Trial Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeals held that there was “insufficient evidence to prove that Tate had intentionally and knowingly possessed methamphetamine.” The court rejected the proximity argument made by the trial court for two reasons:

1. There was insufficient evidence to show the syringe was in the car before Tate got out.
2. Officer Beckham observed the front-seat passenger moving a lot but couldn’t tell exactly what she was doing.

Additionally, the court said that since Tate’s ownership could not be proven it was insufficient evidence to prove possession.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reverses the Court of Appeals—Holding Defendant’s Ownership and Control of Vehicle Where Controlled Substance was Found in Plain View and Within Defendant’s Reach is Sufficient Evidence to Convict for Possession of a Controlled Substance

The CCA held that a rational jury, with these facts, could reasonably infer that the syringe was in the car the entire time. In coming to that decision the Court relied on the fact that the jury believed Beckham’s testimony that he never saw her reach for the compartment, that the back-seat passenger could not reach it, Tate said he owned the vehicle, and that the syringe was found in plain view. Therefore, a rational jury could infer that Tate would be aware of items in his vehicle in plain view, thus find he intentionally or knowingly possessed the methamphetamine in the syringe.

In making this decision the Court relied on the Jackson standard: “Based on the combined and cumulative force of the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). The Court found that the court of appeals incorrectly applied this standard. The Court pointed to a few links that the jury could reasonably rely on to find Tate guilty, which include:

1. the contraband was found in the vehicle that Tate owned and was driving;
2. the contraband was in plain view and conveniently accessible to Tate; and
3. the jury could reasonably believe Beckham’s testimony that the front-seat passenger did not reach over to the compartment and that the back-seat passenger could not reach the compartment.

Thus, when the standard is applied here a rational jury could find the evidence sufficient to find Tate intentionally or knowingly possessed the methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision of the Criminal Court of Appeals—Evidence is Legally Sufficient Where a Rational Jury Could Infer Guild Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The CCA found that the evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to reasonably find Tate guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court of appeals overstepped its bounds in assessing the legal-sufficiency of the evidence.