News and Insights

Court of Criminal Appeals Considers Whether Defense Failed to Preserve Appeal

Smith v. State (Tex Crim. App. 2016)

Warrantless Blood Draw Provides Evidence of DWI

William Smith was stopped by police for driving without a seatbelt. Immediately, law enforcement suspected Smith of driving under the influence because of the “extremely strong smell of alcohol” coming from Smith. Accordingly, law enforcement administered several field sobriety tests and determined that Smith “exhibited clues of intoxication.” Smith became belligerent after being arrested, and refused a breathalyzer. Law enforcement searched Smith’s car incident to his arrest, finding three open containers that were “cold to the touch.” Dashboard camera footage captured the entire stop.

Law enforcement decided to transport Smith to a local hospital for a blood draw because a quick check of Smith’s ID showed that he had two prior DWI convictions. The blood sample taken at the hospital reflected a blood-alcohol concentration of .21 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood—well above the legal limit of .08. Smith elected a bench trial.

Defense Counsel Argues that Blood Draw was Unconstitutional, Trial Judge Seems to Agree

At trial, the State called a forensic scientist to testify about Smith’s blood sample. The forensic scientist testified that Smith’s blood alcohol level exceeded the statutory minimum of .08. Shortly thereafter, there was discussion between the judge and counsel about Texas case law in regards to whether the court must have an “order” signed by a judge or magistrate in order for a blood alcohol test to be admitted into evidence. The defense counsel stated, “I would…object…on constitutional grounds [because] there should be a written order [in evidence].” The State replied that law enforcement was “operating under the laws of the State.” The judge seemed to agree with defense counsel, “No…the legislature allows for this…but that doesn’t mean the law is constitutional.” The judge decided to “carry” the constitutional issue so that each side could research and make a formal brief before the court. However, at the end of the trial, Smith was convicted of DWI. The judge stated the “video of [Smith] showed signs of intoxication, but the judge was surprised…that [Smith]…did as well as he did on the [field sobriety tests]” given the .21 blood alcohol concentration. The judge sentenced Smith to twenty-five years imprisonment. There were no further objections on the record made by defense counsel post-judgment.

Appeal Turns on Lawfulness of the Blood Draw

On appeal, the court of appeals reversed Smith’s conviction because the blood sample was obtained without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment. State appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that Smith did not preserve error at trial with regard to his Fourth Amendment issue, and as a result of the failure, Smith was precluded from raising a constitutional argument on appeal.

The Issue Before the CCA - Did the Defense Preserve Appeal of the Blood Draw Issue?

The CCA must determine whether defense preserved error so that the fourth amendment search and seizure issue could be raised on appeal. To preserve error, defense counsel must obtain a ruling on the complaint, or object to the trial judge’s refusal to rule.” Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2) However, “even evidence that is improperly admitted is considered in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.” Soliz v. State, 432 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The CCA Holds that Appellate Issue was NOT Preserved

Here, the CCA determined that the trial judge declined to rule on the Fourth Amendment constitutional issue at the time, but decided to “carry” the issue. Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The CCA says that although the trial judge admitted the blood-alcohol test results, he did not rule on Smith’s initial objection, and thus, error was not preserved in this case. “In any event,” says the CCA, “there was…evidence to support [Smith’s] conviction aside from the blood-test results.” “Smith never asked for a ruling on the [constitutional issue], nor did defense counsel object to the trial judge’s failure to rule. In sum, failure to preserve error on a fourth amendment search and seizure argument for warrantless blood draws in DWI cases precludes a defendant from raising the constitutional argument on appeal.

In a 5-3 Split, Utah v. Strieff Causes Strife for the Supreme Court: What Happens When an Illegal Stop Leads to the Discovery of an Outstanding Warrant?

Utah v. Strieff (United States Supreme Court - 2016)

The Supreme Court has had a busy term already! Handed down just yesterday, Utah v. Strieff divided the Supreme Court over the question of what happens when an illegal stop leads to the discovery of an outstanding warrant? And when that warrant is executed, what happens when drug paraphernalia is found incident to arrest? Should evidence obtained at a search incident to arrest be suppressed when the stop was unlawful from the start?

Surveillance of a Suspected Drug House Leads to an Arrest for a Traffic Violation

In Strieff, law enforcement conducted surveillance of a Salt Lake City, Utah, residence, after an anonymous tipster called a drug hotline to report to police that drugs were being sold in the home. During the surveillance, police observed a large number of people visiting the home for mere minutes at a time and leaving, increasing law enforcement’s suspicion that the residents were dealing drugs. Shortly after Edward Strieff visited the home, law enforcement stopped and detained Strieff, asking him the reason for visiting the home. Next, police ran Strieff’s identification information through their electronic records, discovering an outstanding arrest warrant on Strieff for a traffic violation. Strieff was arrested and searched. During the search, police found a baggie of meth and other drug paraphernalia in Strieff’s pockets. Strieff was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

Strieff Moves to Suppress the Evidence as the Fruits of an Illegal Police Stop.

At trial, Strieff moved to suppress the evidence as a result of an unlawful investigatory stop. Strieff argued that because law enforcement’s stop was illegal from the beginning, then any evidence found on him as a result of the stop was “tainted.” The State argued that the evidence was in fact admissible because it was found as a result from a search incident to a lawful arrest with a warrant, and that the warrant itself attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the drugs and drug paraphernalia. Agreeing with the State, and finding the presence of the arrest warrant to be an “extraordinary intervening circumstance” the trial court denied Strieff’s motion to suppress. United States v. Simpson, 439 F.3d 490, 496 (CA8 2006). Strieff pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, but preserved his right to appeal.

Utah Supreme Court Holds that Illegal Police Conduct Was Not Attenuated.

On appeal, Strieff argued that the evidence should have been suppressed at trial. However, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. 2012 UT App. 245, 286 P. 3d 317. On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, Strieff argued that the evidence should have been suppressed at trial and that the court of appeals was incorrect in their verdict. The Utah Supreme Court agreed with Strieff, and reversed the lower courts’ rulings, ordering the evidence to be suppressed. 2015 UT 2, 357 P. 3d 532. In declining to apply the attenuation doctrine, the Utah Supreme court held, “the evidence is inadmissible because only a voluntary act of a defendant’s free will sufficiently breaks the connections between an illegal search and the discovery of evidence.” Id. at 536.

The State of Utah appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Strieff contends that the facts of his case show that he was stopped illegally for the purpose of obtaining his identifying information, and that because of flagrant police misconduct, he was detained and searched unlawfully.

US Supreme Court Must Determine Whether Illegal Police Conduct Must Result in Exclusion of the Tainted Evidence.

When a police officer lawfully stops a person and asks for identification, then, discovers that there is a traffic warrant for this person’s arrest, and in the process of arresting and searching him discovers drugs and drug paraphernalia, the evidence found in the search of a person can be used against him.

However, what if the initial stop was not lawful. Doctrinally, does the “attenuation doctrine”—an exception to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment—apply when law enforcement makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop, discovering during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant, and then, arrests the suspect, seizing incriminating evidence during a search incident to arrest?

The Law of the Land: The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “ the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. To enforce the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, “[the Supreme] Court has required…courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct” via the exclusionary rule. Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___(2016).

The Exclusionary Rule to the Fourth Amendment

The Exclusionary Rule to the Fourth Amendment is a legal principal, put forth by the Supreme Court in precedent case law, protecting defendants in criminal cases where evidence is collected in violation of a person’s constitutional rights, by deeming the evidence inadmissible for criminal prosecution. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). The Exclusionary Rule encompasses both the “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure [and] evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984). However, courts will only apply the exclusionary rule, “where the deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006).

The Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Attenuation Doctrine (and Brown Factors)

Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule, one of which is called the “Attenuation Doctrine.” The Attenuation Doctrine provides for admissibility when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and evidence is sufficiently remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstances. Id. at 593. The doctrine “evaluates the causal link between the government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence.” Strieff, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).

The factors, articulated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (the “Brown factors”), are used by courts in legal analyses to determine whether the Attenuation Doctrine is applicable to the facts of a case. The three factors are temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and flagrant police misconduct.

1. Temporal proximity—For example, how much time did it take for police to stop the suspect and to arrest him, and under what circumstances?
2. Intervening circumstances—For example, did the suspect make a confession, or volunteer some other information to law enforcement to indicate that he has committed a crime?
3. Flagrant police misconduct—For example, did police act in an unethical manner to discover evidence, or, is there a pattern of misconduct for that officer or police department as a whole?

The Supreme Court Holds That The Valid Arrest Warrant Attenuated the Taint of the Illegal Stop.

In a 5-3 split, the Supreme Court reverses the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling, holding that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest. Essentially, the arrest warrant was, in and of itself, the attenuation or the reason that the evidence seized is admissible. “The evidence [law enforcement] seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590.”

First, the “temporal proximity” factor “favors suppressing the evidence,” the Supreme Court states, as the stop was initially unlawful and because law enforcement discovered the drug paraphernalia on Strieff mere minutes after he an illegal stop. However, the other two factors strongly favor the State.

Second, the “intervening circumstances” factor is met under the facts of the case. “The existence of a valid arrest warrant, predating the investigation and entirely unconnected with the stop, favors…attenuation between the unlawful conduct and the discovery of evidence.” Further, the warrant itself authorized law enforcement to arrest Strieff—once the arrest was authorized by a magistrate’s signature on a warrant, a search incident to an arrest is “undisputedly lawful.”

Third, the “flagrant police misconduct” factor strongly “favors the state” as law enforcement was “at most negligent…but [these] errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff’s Fourth Amendment rights.” In this case, there was no indication that the stop was part of any systemic police misconduct. Police misconduct and flagrancy requires more than “mere absence of proper cause.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court says that Strieff’s arguments are not persuasive. Law enforcement did not stop Strieff randomly. Strieff had visited a suspicious house that was under surveillance. Law enforcement’s purpose in surveilling the residence was to “gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs.” Further, it is “unlikely that the prevalence of outstanding warrants will create dragnet searches,” says the Supreme Court.

Three Supreme Court Justices Dissent and Would Hold That the Illegal Stop Requires Exclusion of the Seized Evidence.

There were three dissenters who put forth two written dissents to the holding in this case. In the first dissent, Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg (in part) state that, “the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Further the Justices add, “If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right” they implore, “as it is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian.” The holding in this case, they say, undermines the heart of the constitutional protections, “the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit.”

Additionally, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg dissented together. The Justices argue that the majority misapplied the Brown factors altogether, and that an outstanding warrant in and of itself does not an intervening circumstance make. Further, they argue that the outcome of this case invites law enforcement to stop citizens, even without reasonable suspicion. “If the target[ed] [citizen] is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in criminal prosecution,” the Justices argue. Thus, law enforcement’s incentive to violate the Fourth Amendment increases, which is in opposition to the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule altogether—to remove potential temptation from police to stop random individuals without reasonable suspicion.

Commentary

This is a very troubling decision. While we never hope that our police officers would engage in illegal conduct to stop folks that have not committed a violation, it is never good to allow a 4th Amendment violation to be trumped by the later discovery of a traffic warrant. If we subscribe to an "ends justify the means" mentality, all of our constitutional rights are in serious jeopardy. It will be interesting to see how this decision plays out in real life, but I predict that it will not be good in the short term.

Trial Judge Properly Imposed Deferred Adjudication in Sexual Assault Case, says CCA

Anthony v. State (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 2016)

Note: This article contains sensitive subject matter dealing with the sexual assault of a minor.

Defendant Pleads Guilty to Sexual Assault Allegations in Exchange for Deferred Adjudication

In 2009, John Anthony was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years old. In a plea agreement, Anthony pleaded guilty to the charge in exchange for the prosecution’s recommendation of deferred-adjudication with community supervision. Generally speaking, deferred-adjudication is a type of probation in which a defendant enters a plea of guilty, but the judge defers the ruling for a set amount of time. If the set amount of time passes without further criminal activity or other technical violations by the defendant, the judge sets aside the plea and dismisses the case. For Anthony, the trial judge ordered a deferred period of eight years.  During this time, the defendant would remain on community supervision, under the watch of a probation officer. The judge listed the victim’s age as three years old on the official trial judge’s order for deferred adjudication—not "under fourteen years old" as was listed on Anthony’s indictment.

Several years passed until 2013, when the State moved to adjudicate because Anthony allegedly violated his community supervision directives. Finding the new allegations to be true, the judge adjudicated Anthony guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. Once again, the judgment listed the victim’s age as three years old, not fourteen years old as was listed on Anthony’s original indictment.

Age Discrepancy on Judge’s Orders Leads to Sentence Reversal

Anthony appealed his adjudicated sentence with court-appointed counsel, who eventually filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). While reviewing the Anders brief, the court of appeals became concerned about the discrepancy in the victim’s age listed on the judge’s orders and on the original indictment. Specifically, the court of appeals was concerned that the trial court’s “finding” that the victim was three years old meant that under section 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial judge was entirely precluded from imposing deferred adjudication in the first place. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.12, § 5(d)(3)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2015). Additionally, the court of appeals was concerned that the age discrepancy error led to a potential flaw in sentencing. Further, the sentencing flaw potentially pointed to the fact that Anthony’s trial counsel could have been ineffective, possibly inducing Anthony into pleading “guilty” to a deal that should have never been made at all. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment. The State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals to review the case.

Can the Trial Court Place a Defendant on Deferred Adjudication for a Sexual Offense involving a 3 Year-Old Victim?

Now, the Court of Criminal Appeals must determine whether the potential age discrepancy error on the original indictment and on the trial judge’s orders created a procedural error during sentencing, possibly leading to ineffective assistance of counsel. If the age discrepancy is problematic procedurally, what should happen to Anthony’s original sentence?

Here, the Court of Criminal Appeals says that the trial judge properly imposed deferred adjudication. Because the indictment read that the victim was “younger than fourteen years old” and because there is nothing in the trial record to indicate that the State intended to prosecute under more stringent statutes with more stringent punishment guidelines, the CCA holds that the original sentence is proper. Further, the CCA deems Anthony’s previous trial counsel to be effective. Accordingly, the CCA strikes the “three year old” victim language in the trial court’s order, amending the language to reflect that the victim, “was younger than fourteen years of age at the time of the offense.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.015(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 78.1(c). Anthony’s sentence of life imprisonment stands because his deferred adjudication was properly imposed in 2009.

Second Court of Appeals Holds that Satanic Cell Phone Photos Were Relevant Character Evidence in Punishment Phase for Attempted Capital Murder Case

 

Pantoja v. State (2nd Court of Appeals - Fort Worth, 2016)

A Cocaine-Fueled Binge Leads to an Attack

During an alcohol and cocaine-fueled binge, nineteen-year-old Rigoberto Pantoja attacked a group of friends in Mansfield, Texas one evening in September of 2014. After watching the Floyd Mayweather fight, Pantoja began talking to himself. Eventually, he pulled a gun and fired two times, hitting Pantoja’s friend in the face. Pantoja put the gun to the head of a second friend, but when the gun would not fire, Pantoja pulled a knife, stabbing the friend three times. He also stabbed a third friend. All of the victims survived the injuries. Pantoja was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and attempted capital murder.

At trial, Pantoja pled guilty to the aggravated assault and attempted capital murder charges before a judge. Pantoja requested a jury for the punishment phase of his trial, asking that the jury grant him community supervision (probation). At the punishment phase, the State called twelve character witnesses; Pantoja’s defense counsel called four, including his father who was set to testify about Pantoja’s Catholic upbringing and religious way of life.

Just before the defense called Pantoja’s father to the stand, and out of the presence of the jury, the State indicated to the Court that it intended to cross-examine Pantoja’s father about satanic images found on Pantoja’s cell phone, confiscated the night he was arrested. The Judge told the State to proceed with calling witnesses and that “whenever you are ready to ask question [regarding the satanic photos], approach up here and then I’ll make a ruling at that time.” After that conversation, the jury returned to the courtroom.

Cross-Examination Regarding the Defendant's Cell Phone Images

The defense called Pantoja’s father who testified to Pantoja’s good nature. He said that his son helped around the house and helped out with the family’s living expenses. Pantoja’s father also spoke of his son’s strong Catholic faith and upbringing. The defense admitted photos from the father of Pantoja’s first communion, photos of Pantoja’s bedroom with a Virgin of Guadalupe poster on the wall, and photos of Pantoja’s car depicting a rosary hanging from the rearview mirror. The State cross-examined Pantoja’s father, asking, “Were you aware that your son kept pictures of satanic worship on his cell phone?” The father responded, “no.”

The jury assessed Pantoja’s punishment at eighty years’ confinement for both offenses, denying Pantoja’s request for community supervision. Pantoja timely appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, arguing that the satanic photos shown to the jury were highly prejudicial, had no probative value whatsoever, did not establish a material fact that related to any element of his offenses, and ultimately were not relevant to his case and sentencing.

Did the Trial Court Err By Allowing the Satanic Images to Go Before the Jury?

The Second Court of Appeals had to determine whether the trial court should have stopped the State’s cross-examination of Pantoja’s father regarding the Satanic images found on Pantoja’s cell phone. Did the photos have relevance to the case under the Texas Rules of Evidence? If so, were the photos highly prejudicial to the jury?

The Texas Rules of Evidence

Relevancy

Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that, “evidence may be offered by the State and the defendant as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including…his character [and] an opinion regarding his character…” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2015). Evidence is relevant to a punishment determination if that evidence will assist the fact-finder in tailoring an appropriate sentence. Henderson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 616, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]2000, pet. ref’d.

Community Supervision

When a defendant requests community supervision, a trial court may reasonably deem any character trait that pertains to the defendant’s suitability for community supervision to be a relevant matter for the sentencer to consider. Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Character Evidence and Opinion Testimony

When character evidence is admissible—as in a community supervision request during the punishment phase—such character traits may be proven by testimony in the form of an opinion. Tex. R. Evid. 405(a); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349-51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). An opinion witness is generally to be asked “did you know” questions. Id. at 350.

Cross Examination of Character Witnesses

On cross-examination of a character witness, inquiry may be made about specific incidents of a person’s conduct, subject to the following limitations. Id. at 351.

1. The incident must be relevant to the character traits at issue. Burke v. State, 371 S.W.3d, 252, 261 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d, untimely filed).
2. The alleged Bad Act must have a basis in fact. Id.
3. Before the questions are asked, the foundation for asking the question should be laid outside of the jury’s presence, so that the judge will have an opportunity to rule on them. Id.

The Second Court of Appeals Finds No Error

Here, the Court says that the father’s testimony about Pantoja’s strict Catholic upbringing and religious faith constituted “opinion” character testimony. Additionally, the Court says, his testimony was relevant under the Texas Rules of Evidence, pertinent to the request made for community supervision, as “a sentencer might rationally want to take into account testimony of his good character and that he had a stable home life…and that he possess an indicia of a religious upbringing.”

Further, this character testimony was provided by the defense. Because the defense called the father as a character witness, the State had the right to cross-examine the father "through did-you-know questions" about Pantoja’s character. "The State had the proper predicate for it’s 'did you know' question by establishing outside the presence of the jury the factual basis for the specific instances of Pantoja’s conduct (the satanic cell phone photos)." The Court overruled Pantoja’s appeal, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men: What Happens When a Robbery Accomplice Goes Rogue?

Davis v. State (2nd COA, 2016)

Davis v. State is a case about two robberies— one a planned robbery of a convenience store, and the other of the customer inside the convenience store, a spur of the moment decision. What happens when accomplices to a well-planned robbery go “rogue” and commit additional crimes that are not part of the original plan?  Who is on the hook for their actions?

The Robbery That Didn’t Go According to Plan

Desmond Davis and two accomplices planned to rob a convenience store at night. Around 9:30pm, Davis entered the store alone and chatted with a customer. Moments later, two accomplices entered the store, pointing loaded guns at the cashier and the customer. The accomplices decided to rob the customer first, despite Davis’s instructions not to do so, “we just [came] for the store.” Davis jumped over the cash register and took money from the cash drawer. The customer dropped his cash to the floor and ran to the store’s restroom, locking the door behind him. The gunmen fled with the cash from the store and from the customer. Once the coast was clear, the store employee called 911 and locked the doors. The entire robbery was captured on a security camera. The three robbers split all of the cash among themselves after the robbery.

Shortly after Davis’s arrest, police obtained a confession after the detective told Davis, more or less, that not only could his confession be used for or against him, but that it could be used for or against him at trial. During the interrogation, the detective asked Davis to “man up” and give his side of the story, admitting his own guilt. Davis eventually made a written statement to law enforcement, admitting to his role in planning and carrying out the robbery. The interrogation and confession were captured on video.

The Case Goes to Trial - Davis is Tried for the Original Planned Robbery and the Unplanned Actions of his Cohorts

At trial, the jury convicted Davis on two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon—one count for the convenience store and one count for the customer. Davis was assessed a punishment of 30 years (for one count) and 15 years (for the other count) and a $1,000.00 fine for each count.

On appeal, Davis argued that his instructions to the accomplices not to rob the customer defeated the theft element of that robbery and thus, the record is insufficient to show his participation in the aggravated robbery of the customer specifically. Further, Davis argues that his confession was obtained under duress, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The issue before the Second Court of Appeals was to determine whether, in addition to the robbery of the store, Davis also participated in the robbery of the customer, and, whether Davis’s written confession obtained by police violated section 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Law in Texas - Robbery and Confessions

Robbery is an assaultive offense, where the assaultive conduct is the essence of the crime, not the theft in and of itself. Ex Parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In robbery prosecutions, the number of persons assaulted is at issue, not the number of thefts in one crime episode. Id.

Section 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

When law enforcement securing a defendant’s written confession tells the defendant that the confession “could be used for or against him in court” or "for and against him in court" and that "they might go easy on him if he confessed," the written confession becomes inadmissible because it violates section 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Sterling v. State, 800 S. W.2d, 513, 518-519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Section 38.22 of the Code deals with admissibility of written confessions in court.

The Second Court of Appeals Affirms the Judgment of the Trial Court

Here, the robbers intended on stealing the money from the cash register when two of the gunmen pointed their weapons at an innocent customer and stole his money. Based on this alone, the Court says, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination “that [Davis] intended to steal the store’s money and that the [accomplices] threatened the customer while they were stealing money from the [store].” Further Davis and the accomplices shared all of the money stolen in that crime episode—there was no effort made to distribute the customer’s money to only the two accomplices. Davis participated in the store robbery. Even though he told his accomplices to not rob the customer, Davis still placed the customer in fear by waving firearms and by jumping over the counter to steal money out of the register.

Additionally, after the Court reviewed the interrogation tape, the Court “determined that the “officer told [Davis] that he had an opportunity to tell his side of the story and that he could be a man by admitting his guilt.” The officer never suggested to Davis that he would be helping his court case by admitting his guilt. The confession was, therefore, not obtained in violated of Section 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court acknowledges that caselaw, such as James v. State, exists that holds that a “defendant who was merely present when his [accomplice] assaulted another was not guilty of robbery…because there was no evidence of a previous agreement to rob the [bystander],” such is not exactly the case here. James v. State, 161 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942). Davis saw the robbery of the customer taking place, and then decided to capitalize on the level of fear created to jump over the counter “and grab some money for himself.”