1 - Voice For The Defense Online

commission. The indictment alleged twcdistinct capital offenses - capital mrdaofHurtado and capital murder of Garcia-Castro. CCA also says the final paragraphcannot be reconciled as chargingthe same capital offense as the first twopivragraphs. Because COA erred in concludingthat the indictment alleged onlyone offmse, and thai 8 3.04(a) did notapply for that reasan, judgment is vacatedand cause is re~nanded "for furtherprwedingsconsistcnt with this opinion!'PDRs Granted0282-00, BEARD, WILLIAM E;06/07/00; A; Dallas; DWI: 005//18831. Tbe Conrt of Appeals decided animportant qnwlion of law - whether thetrial court erred by admitting into evidencetestimony relating to the resultsof an intoxllyzer test without first requir-mg the state to satisfy the requirementsof K m - in confiict with thiscon& decisions in Kelly and Hanman.0243-00, FREEMAN, RONNIE;06/07/00; S @A's #I & SPA'S #2);Lubbock; Murder:I. Does the aial cowl abuse its daeretionby disallowing defense eounsel toinform vanremembers of faots of theinstant offense and ask how the factswould affect t he veninnembers' verdictat guilUinnocence and punishment?2. Does a question to a prospective jumras to whether tho fact that the victim wasa two-week old child would have anyeffect on their verdict, whether it he onguilt-innocence or on punishment, constituiean improper commitment of thejuror to a course of reasoning, or anattempt to dtsoover the juroi's mentalprocesses or the wcrght he or she wouldgivepart~cular testimony?COURT OF APPEATSDONOVAN K STATE, 01-98-00427-CR, 5/4/2000.Court holds that a defendant may notfile a ination for new trial affer bungplaced on deferred adjudication. Here,after assessment of the deferred, thcdefeudant filed MNT alleging ineffect~veassistance of counsel. Absent a MNT, asnoted in the dissent, the defendant wouldhave bean unable lo substantiate hisallegationof IAC hecause of an inadequaterecord. Court holds that defend;u~t mustfirst mdve for adjudication of guilt, hesentenced to penitentiary (offense was a3g offense), and then move for a newtnal.GUZMAN KSTATE, 05-98-02164-CR,5/4/2000. Important case.This is an appeal based on a Batsonchallenge. State explained it peremptorychallenge in part, because the casewas the murder of a woman and slatepreferred women jurors to men. Slateadvanced two other reasons that hadnothing to do with gender. Court holdsfirst that the explanation based on thenature of the case was gender based andtherefore violated Batson. Even if thisimpermissible reason wes only part ofthe reason for removing the venireman,it nevertheless violates Batson and casemnst he reversed.LEE K STATE, 112-99-00028-CR,4/28/2000.An outcry statemenf, to he admissible,must he the fmt statement whichdesor~hes the offense. Hcre, the complainanttold his baby sitter how he hadinjured himself. At the hospital, hc tolda police officer the detail of the offense.Court holds that first statement wasnothing more than a mere allusion to apossible offcnse and therefore was nutan outcry statement Statement to officerwas ontcry and, thus, admissible.GUARDIOLA K STATE, 14-95-01073-CR, 5/4/2000 (on motion for rebaring).On rehearing, court holds to its originalopinion ill one respect by holdingthat State may not use a grand jury suhpoenain lien of an arrest warrant. To doso is an ahnse of the grand jury process.Court holds that resulting confessionwas attenuated h n illegal conduct andthus, admiss~ble.4UTRY K STATE, Ol-98-00667-CR,5/25/2000.Here the defendant was seen nwwhat looked to the officers as a drugtransaction. A few minutes later, thedefmdant talked to one of the parties tothe drug transaction. Officer thendetained the defendant's car until dogwuld he obtained for a "snifP search.Court holds that because the police sawnothing that resembled criminal activityby the defendant, the officers hadno rea-sonable suspicion to hold his car for ac a h search.GONZALES K STATE, 01-98-01289-CR, 5/25/2000.When Texas and sister state have difkreotmles of evidence on an issueofprivilege ( here priest penitent), it is lawof the state where the conversationoccurred that controls. Here, the defendamsought religious counseling frompastor in California whm the law mandatesprivilege only if the religious faithin question demands that sue11 conversationsbe kept secret. As religion heremade no such demand, there was noprivileged conversation.-, 06-98-00019-CR, 5/24/2000. Important case.Court concludes that rcfusing to allowdefmse counsel to question a juror or fortrial court to propound questions, wasarm of constitutional dimension.Beeawe harm could not adequateiy beevaluated, court could not concludebeyond reasonahlo doubt that euor washarmless and case was reversed. Courtconelndcd that constitutional error standardapplied because the consfitutionalright to effective assistance of counselincludes the right to adequately andeffechvely voir dire the jury to identifyunqualified jurors. This includes theright to question those already on thejury about whom questions of fairnessarise after case has connnenced.GOWN K STATE, 09-99-190-CR,5/17/2000The defendant was convicted ofattempted escape from a penal institutionwhile-io prison for a 3(g) offense.Ha indichnent alleged two prior firstdegrcc felony convictions. The offense,Voice 34 - julylAugusr 2000 - Signihcant Decissions Report