Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

July 22, 2024

Texas Court Holds Witness is Permitted to Testify Remotely in Child Sexual Assault Case

In the American legal system, one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to anyone accused of a crime is the right to confront the witnesses against them. This right is enshrined in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that in criminal prosecutions, defendants can face their accusers in a face-to-face setting. This principle aims to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and allow defendants to challenge the testimony of those who accuse them. However, the Constitution was written over 250 years ago, long before the advent of modern technology. Consequently, it does not explicitly address whether this right is upheld when witnesses testify remotely via platforms like Zoom. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled on a case addressing this issue.

In a recent case, a man was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to sixty years in prison. A portion of the evidence against him came from a witness who had reported hearing of the abuse. During the trial, the prosecution requested that this witness testify via Zoom due to her fear of retaliation if she were to appear in person. The trial court granted this request, citing her safety concerns and the logistical difficulties of having her testify in person. Despite the defendant’s objections on the grounds of the Confrontation Clause, the trial proceeded with the witness appearing remotely. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced, but he appealed the conviction, arguing that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated. The intermediate appellate court agreed, overturning the conviction on these grounds and criticizing the trial court’s justification for allowing remote testimony.

The State challenged this decision, bringing the case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In reviewing the case, this higher court focused on whether the trial court’s decision to allow the witness’s remote testimony sufficiently met the legal standards set out by previous cases. The central issue was whether the necessity for remote testimony, driven by the witness’s fear of retaliation, was an acceptable reason for deviating from the traditional face-to-face confrontation.

July 14, 2024

How Deferred Adjudication Agreements for Felony Offenses Can Affect Sentencing Enhancements

by Robert Guest

In Texas, many criminal prosecutions are resolved through deferred adjudication agreements. These agreements can be highly beneficial for defendants as they place a formal judgment on hold, allowing the defendant to fulfill certain obligations. Once these are met, the charges may be dismissed or significantly reduced. This approach helps many avoid jail time and a more severe criminal record. However, deferred adjudication comes with its own set of disadvantages. Defendants must admit fault at the start and have fewer opportunities to challenge the charges. Essentially, while deferred adjudication can lessen the immediate impact of a criminal charge, it also requires an upfront admission of guilt and compliance with stringent conditions.

Entering a deferred adjudication agreement can help a defendant maintain a less severe criminal record. However, it’s important to understand that even though such agreements do not result in a formal conviction, they can still be considered in future legal matters. This was highlighted in a recent case heard by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. A man, who had entered into a deferred adjudication agreement for a felony charge, was later convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. He argued that since his prior offense had been handled through deferred adjudication, it should not count as a “felony conviction” for future offenses. The court ultimately agreed with his contention.

The case arose when the defendant, instead of pleading guilty to a felony, entered into a plea arrangement. Later, the state treated this arrangement as if he had been convicted of a felony when charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm. The man contested his conviction on the grounds that he was not technically a convicted felon at the time of his arrest for firearm possession. The higher court’s ruling supported his appeal, emphasizing that prosecutors should not use deferred adjudication agreements for felony charges as prior felony convictions if the defendant successfully completes the terms or appropriately attends the program.

June 30, 2024

What if Criminal Action is Necessary to Protect Against a Greater Harm?

by Robert Guest

One of the most common general philosophical discussions concerning law and crime in Texas involves what is known as the “necessity defense.” The necessity defense allows for certain criminal conduct to be excused when the conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm. Self-defense is a type of necessity defense, as is the violation of traffic laws in order to prevent a serious accident. The Texas Court of Appeals recently evaluated a DUI defendant’s claim that she was behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated because it was necessary to safely get the car off the road after the driver had fallen ill.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant visited a bar and club district in College Station and consumed several alcoholic beverages, rendering her unfit to drive her vehicle back home. Her brother drove her vehicle with her in the passenger seat and her sister-in-law in the back. At some point, the brother became ill and stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road, prompting the defendant to switch seats with him in an attempt to move the vehicle to a nearby parking lot. Despite being intoxicated and feeling unsafe to drive, she attempted to move the car but was unsuccessful, and a police officer later found the vehicle stopped in traffic with the defendant in the driver’s seat, and she was arrested and charged with DUI.

At trial, The defendant argued that her actions were justified under the necessity defense, contending that she was only attempting to move the car off the road for safety reasons, not to drive it home. However, the trial court denied her request for a necessity instruction. On a first appeal, the court evaluated whether the defendant satisfied the requirements of the necessity defense, including demonstrating a reasonable belief that her actions were immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm. The court found that her intoxication compromised her ability to form a reasonable belief and that there was no evidence of specific imminent harm.

June 11, 2024

Applying the Due Process Clause of the Constitution to Electronic Court Hearings

by Robert Guest

With the passing of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the legal landscape in Texas has undergone significant transformations. Notably, there has been a marked increase in remote court hearings and adjudications, a trend that persists even as the threat of illness has diminished. The increase in the number and scope of remote proceedings has sparked additional constitutional inquiries, particularly regarding the rights of Texas criminal defendants participating in hearings from a distance. A recent ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals highlighted one such instance where a defendant’s federal constitutional right to due process was deemed violated during a Zoom hearing. The defendant found himself sequestered in a breakout room with his microphone muted, effectively barring communication with the court or his legal counsel.

According to the findings outlined in the judicial opinion, the defendant was in court facing allegations of a potential probation violation stemming from a prior conviction. Previous transcripts revealed that the defendant had been reprimanded by the judge for attempting to interject during proceedings, leading to the muting of his microphone and his relocation to an isolated electronic space. In this separate room, he was unable to confer with his attorney on how to address the witness testifying against him. Following the adjudication hearing, the defendant received a ten-year confinement sentence for the alleged probation violation.

The defendant appealed this ruling to a higher court, contending that his fundamental rights under the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution were violated when he was excluded from participating in the hearing that resulted in his imprisonment. On the initial appeal, the court found merit in the defendant’s argument, determining that his rights under the Confrontation Clause had indeed been infringed as he was unable to confront the witnesses against him. The State then escalated the case to the highest criminal appellate court in Texas, which scrutinized the events through the lens of the Due Process Clause. Ultimately, the high court concluded that the defendant possessed a fundamental right to be physically present at the hearing, and by muting and sequestering him, this right was compromised. Consequently, the appellate ruling dictated a reversal of the defendant’s adjudicated commitment, potentially sparing him from serving time for the alleged violation.

May 31, 2024

Texas High Court Affirms Enhanced Punishment for Theft Crime Based on 20-Year-Old Federal Conviction

by Robert Guest

Criminal defendants in Texas with prior criminal convictions can be disadvantaged at nearly all stages of the Texas prosecution. Law enforcement officers who notice that an individual has a lengthy criminal record may have a bias against them and seek them out for arrest. Many Texas crimes can be charged at a higher level if an individual has prior convictions. During a trial, the judge or jury may be able to consider prior crimes or convictions in determining a defendant’s guilt, and at sentencing, prior convictions can be used to increase the punishment for a crime. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently rejected a post-conviction petition filed by a woman who had been sentenced to 40 years in a Texas prison for a theft offense, based in part upon a 2001 federal criminal conviction.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the defendant was convicted of a theft crime in Texas in 2023. Because she had a final criminal conviction out of a federal court in Alaska from 2001, the punishment for her more recent crime was enhanced to a 40-year prison term. After her conviction was final and the direct appeals were exhausted, the woman sought a petition for Habeas Corpus post-conviction relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Habeas relief is available in Texas for several reasons, including if the sentence issued was illegal. The woman argued that her sentence was illegally enhanced by the prior conviction because the prior conviction was not “final” as determined by Texas law.

In support of her petition, the woman argued that her prior conviction was not finalized, as she had sought appeals and other relief through the federal court. The high Texas court rejected her arguments, ruling that under Texas law, a conviction is final after all appellate remedies had been pursued and rejected, and the conviction was affirmed by the appellate court in a final mandate. Because the woman had exhausted her appeals in the federal case, the ruling was final under Texas law, and her application for Habeas relief was denied. As a result of the most recent ruling, the woman will be required to serve out her 40-year sentence for the Texas theft crime.

May 13, 2024

When Can Surprise Testimony by a State’s Witness Result in a Mistrial?

by Robert Guest

Texas prosecutors often rely on the testimony of alleged victims or eyewitnesses to obtain convictions for violent crimes. It is important to remember that witnesses are only human, and sometimes they will testify in a manner that the prosecution did not expect. Such surprise testimony may put the defense at a serious disadvantage by not allowing them to properly prepare in anticipation of such testimony. In some circumstances, the introduction of surprise testimony to the jury can be grounds for a mistrial, which could ultimately prevent a defendant from being convicted. The Texas Court of Appeals recently addressed a defendant’s appeal that surprise evidence introduced in his prosecution should have resulted in a mistrial.

In this recent case, a man had been charged with sexual assault after a woman alleged he picked her up from the side of the road and assaulted her at knifepoint. During the trial, there was a surprising revelation during the alleged victim’s testimony about her profession as a prostitute, which caused the defense to request a mistrial. The witness testified that she was working as a prostitute on the night of the assault, which the defense claimed was not disclosed by the prosecution, alleging a violation of the Brady rule, which requires the state to disclose exculpatory evidence. The trial court denied the defense motion, the defendant was convicted, and he appealed the mistrial ruling.

On appeal, the prosecution argued that they did not have prior knowledge of the witness’s profession because she mentioned it for the first time during her trial testimony. The prosecutor explained that the witness had come from out of state and hadn’t discussed the specifics of the case with the prosecution until just before taking the stand.

April 30, 2024

Texas Court Disagrees with Insufficient Evidence Argument in Aggravated Assault by Threat Case

by Robert Guest

A recent criminal case before a district court in Texas highlights the importance of specific and credible testimony during trial. At issue in this appeal was the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault by threat. On appeal, the defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he threatened one of the complainants in the case. Upon reviewing the trial record, the higher court reviewed the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, affirming the appeal.

Background of the Case

According to the opinion, the incident at issue involved two men fighting for space in a lane while driving on the highway. Both men rolled down their windows, and the defendant shouted profanities and racial slurs at the second man. The men both ended up at a nearby gas station, and they got out of their cars to exchange words.

Meanwhile, the complainant’s girlfriend and their two young children stayed in his car. The girlfriend testified at trial that she heard her boyfriend indicate that the defendant had a gun in his possession. Similarly, the complainant testified that the defendant had an AR rifle in his hand and that the defendant verbally indicated he wanted to shoot the defendant and his family.

April 17, 2024

Texas Court Reverses Criminal Conviction over Ambiguously Worded Statute

by Robert Guest

Prosecutors in Texas have the incentive to pursue the most serious charges and convictions that they can justify, as their reputations may depend on the number of serious crimes that they have prosecuted. Because of this, prosecutors are often known to overcharge defendants; pursuing charges for crimes that a defendant could not reasonably have committed. Prosecutors sometimes take advantage of ambiguously worded legal statutes to pursue serious felony charges against defendants for which they may not be applicable. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas recently issued an opinion reversing a man’s conviction for evading arrest based upon the ambiguous language of the statute.

The statute in question states: “A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.” The pivotal question revolves around whether the defendant’s knowledge extends to the lawfulness of the arrest or detention itself. While one interpretation suggests that the defendant must be aware of the lawfulness of the arrest or detention, another viewpoint posits that such knowledge is not required. This discrepancy has led to differing opinions among courts of appeals, highlighting the need for clarification.

In dissecting the legislative intent behind the statute, the opinion emphasizes a text-first approach to statutory interpretation. It examines the history of amendments to the statute, particularly the 1993 amendment, which replaced an exception to prosecution with the term “lawfully.” This change suggests that the legislature intended for the term to function similarly to the repealed exception, indicating a non-substantive alteration.

April 17, 2024

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Attempts to Clarify Forgery Statute

by Robert Guest

White-collar crimes, often involving financial deception or fraud, present a unique set of challenges for lawmakers and criminal attorneys alike. The evolving economy in the digital age necessitates new laws and regulations to address the evolving nature of white-collar crime. A recent judicial opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas sheds light on the intricate nature of defending against such charges, particularly in light of the evolving legal landscape that is affected by new legislation and regulations in the white-collar field.

The recently published opinion delves into the amendments made to the forgery statute by the Texas Legislature in 2017, which introduced subsection (e-1) and modified the felony provisions in subsections (d) and (e)in cases involving forgery under Section 32.21 of the Texas Penal Code. These amendments signal the Legislature’s intent to prioritize certain elements of forgery offenses over others, creating a hierarchical framework that impacts the classification and prosecution of such crimes. As a result of the legislative changes, prosecutors found themselves at odds with judges who appeared to add additional elements to the offense.

One significant aspect illuminated in the opinion is the application of the in pari materia doctrine, which dictates that when statutes irreconcilably conflict, defendants have a right to be prosecuted under a “special” statute that aligns with the specific elements of their offense. This principle underscores the importance of accurately assessing the statutory elements at play and advocating for the most favorable interpretation for the defendant.

February 23, 2024

Challenging the Unfair Application of Restitution in Texas Criminal Cases

by Robert Guest

Facing criminal charges can be overwhelming, especially when the aftermath involves not just legal consequences but also financial burdens. Texas criminal courts are allowed to issue restitution orders to victims of criminal cases, and the payments must be made as part of a defendant’s criminal case. Criminal restitution can exist in addition to civil liability for actions related to a criminal offense. In a recent Texas case, a defendant found himself ordered to pay restitution for damages resulting from a car accident, raising questions about the fairness of such rulings. This blog post delves into the intricacies of restitution in Texas criminal cases and highlights the need for a vigilant defense against potentially unjust financial burdens.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the case involved a collision where the defendant damaged a utility pole and an antique truck. While convicted of failure to perform a duty to provide information after the accident, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution for damages caused by the accident. The key question at hand is whether restitution can be ordered for an offense that did not directly cause the damage. The lower court entered a restitution ruling against the defendant, leading him to appeal.

The appellate court saw things differently than the trial court, and agreed with the defendant’s arguments that the restitution order was not appropriate. The defendant was convicted of failure to comply with duties after an accident, not for causing the damage to the utility pole and truck. The court noted that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the imposition of restitution. It emphasizes the statutory references requiring a direct connection between the offense and the damage caused. The analysis underscores that the criminal offense must be the cause of the damage for restitution to be justified.