Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

April 17, 2024

Texas Court Reverses Criminal Conviction over Ambiguously Worded Statute

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 This change suggests that the legislature intended for the term to function similarly to the repealed exception, indicating a non-substantive alteration.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.

February 8, 2024

The Importance of Witness Credibility and Consent in Texas Sexual Assault Cases

by Robert Guest

Texas criminal law has developed in a way that seek clarity and justice in protecting the rights of victims of sexual assault. Those accused of sexual assault may also face a stigma because of the type of allegations, and sexual assault cases often come down to he-said-she-said credibility issues that make it essential for jurors to both understand the law of consent and accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses. A recent judicial opinion from Texas demonstrates the challenges faced by both the prosecution and defense in navigating the legal intricacies surrounding witness testimony and the interpretation of consent.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the recent case in question involved an individual who was convicted of attempted sexual assault, a third-degree felony. However, the trial court’s jury instructions became a focal point of contention on appeal, as it allowed the jury to consider a broader range of actions than originally alleged in the indictment. The charge included a lesser-included offense for attempted sexual assault with an application paragraph that expanded the means of penetration to “by any means,” contrary to the indictment’s specific mention of using the sexual organ.

Upon appeal, the court of appeals found that an error was made in the charge and that the charge error was not harmless and led to egregious harm, resulting in a reversal of the conviction. The dissenting opinion argued that the error was harmless, emphasizing the unlikely scenario in which the jury would engage in convoluted mental gymnastics to reach a verdict.

January 2, 2024

Texas Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Lower Court’s Ruling on Motion to Suppress, Due in Part to Additional Offense Committed

by Robert Guest

In a November 2023 case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant asked for a review of the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence. Reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the higher court ultimately disagreed with his argument and affirmed the original verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the difficulty of suppressing incriminating evidence when a defendant commits multiple offenses in a row, serving as a reminder for Texans of just how difficult it can be to successfully suppress evidence in criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol one evening used an automated license plate reader to discover that a nearby vehicle’s owner was wanted on multiple outstanding arrest warrants. Additionally, the officers noticed that the vehicle did not match the one for which the vehicle’s tags had been issued.

The officers put on their lights and attempted to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant stopped at first, but then he proceeded to flee the scene. What ensued was a high-speed chase that lasted approximately one hour. Eventually, officers used spike strips to stop the defendant in his car. The officers then arrested the defendant for avoiding arrest.

December 15, 2023

Texas Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Lower Court’s Ruling on Motion to Suppress, Due in Part to Additional Offense Committed

by Robert Guest

In a November 2023 case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant asked for a review of the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence. Reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the higher court ultimately disagreed with his argument and affirmed the original verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the difficulty of suppressing incriminating evidence when a defendant commits multiple offenses in a row, serving as a reminder for Texans of just how difficult it can be to successfully suppress evidence in criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol one evening used an automated license plate reader to discover that a nearby vehicle’s owner was wanted on multiple outstanding arrest warrants. Additionally, the officers noticed that the vehicle did not match the one for which the vehicle’s tags had been issued.

The officers put on their lights and attempted to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant stopped at first, but then he proceeded to flee the scene. What ensued was a high-speed chase that lasted approximately one hour. Eventually, officers used spike strips to stop the defendant in his car. The officers then arrested the defendant for avoiding arrest.

November 22, 2023

How Prosecutors Use Expert Witnesses in Texas Criminal Cases

by Robert Guest

For some criminal prosecutions, the government will go to great lengths to influence a jury to convict a defendant. Prosecutors will often retain and call expert witnesses to testify in support of a guilty verdict. Expert testimony is not always permitted, though when experts are allowed to testify on the state’s behalf, their testimony can significantly harm a defendant’s defense. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently released a decision that sheds light on their qualifications and the admissibility of their testimony.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with a Texas domestic violence offense. At trial, the prosecution sought to prove the elements of an aggravated offense, and the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the state inappropriately used an expert witness who unfairly influenced the jury to convict him of the aggravated offense.

On appeal, the Court found that Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, plays a pivotal role in determining whether an expert witness’s testimony will be considered in court. Under this rule, three conditions must be met before expert testimony becomes admissible: qualification, reliability, and relevance.

November 15, 2023

Texas Defendant in Assault Case Unsuccessfully Requests Lower Sentence Before District Court

by Robert Guest

In a recent criminal case before a district court in Texas, the defendant asked the court to find that the trial judge had been biased against him when deciding to sentence him to 50 years in prison. According to the defendant, the judge decided on 50 years arbitrarily, and the higher court should reverse that decision. Looking at the record, however, the district court disagreed with the defendant and ended up affirming the lower court’s sentence. This case serves as an example of how difficult it can be to establish bias-related claims on appeal, which is why it is essential for criminal defense attorneys to create detailed records in the event bias becomes a concern down the road.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with assault after he physically abused a person that he was dating. He struck her with his hand, hit her with an object, pulled her hair, and pushed her to the ground. According to the State, the defendant used both a car and a firearm during the assault, which made the offense more serious.

The defendant had been previously convicted of assault, specifically assault against a family member. The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty. After trial, the court sentenced the defendant to 50 years in prison. The defendant promptly appealed the judge’s decision.

The Court’s Decision and Legal Analysis

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court judge was biased against him. During the sentencing phase of the case, the judge spoke at length about the defendant’s prior convictions. After discussing the defendant’s criminal history at length, the judge decided he would accept the State’s suggestion and sentence the defendant to 50 years in prison.

November 7, 2023

Texas Defendant Asks for Reconsideration in Murder Case; Court Rules that Evidence Supported His Conviction

by Robert Guest

In a recent case before a Texas court, the defendant appealed a jury’s unanimous decision that he was the shooter responsible for a 2020 drive-by shooting. According to the defendant, the evidence was legally insufficient to result in his guilty conviction. On appeal, the higher court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, affirming the original conviction and sentence. The case serves as a good example of one of the most common–but challenging–defenses in all of criminal law: insufficiency of the evidence.

Facts of the Case

The defendant’s case revolved around an August 2020 drive-by shooting that took place in Grand Prairie, Texas. A seventeen-year-old boy was killed while at a convenience store, and investigators discovered that the shots came from a driver-side window of a white SUV speeding by. The police department notified all local agencies to be on the lookout for the car, and an officer eventually stopped the SUV a few hours later.

The officer searched the SUV and found a nine-millimeter bullet, which matched the bullet casings found at the crime scene. After some additional investigation, the State charged the defendant (who was also the car’s driver) as the shooter. His case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged. The defendant appealed.

October 31, 2023

Expert Strategies for Collin County DUI Defense

by Robert Guest

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a criminal offense that one should never take lightly. Collin County is known for its zero-tolerance approach to DUI, which means that even a single drink can lead to an arrest. If you or a loved one has been charged with DUI in Collin County, it is fundamental to know the laws, penalties, and consequences. Additionally, building a strong DUI defense strategy and working with an experienced Collin County DUI attorney can significantly increase your chances of securing a favorable outcome.

Understanding Collin County DUI Laws

Before we delve deeper into how to build a strong DUI defense strategy, it is essential to understand the DUI laws in Collin County.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits

In Collin County, the legal limit for BAC is 0.08%. However, drivers under the age of 21, commercial drivers, and individuals on probation for a previous DUI charge cannot have any alcohol in their system while operating a vehicle. It is important to note that BAC can be affected by a variety of factors, including the individual’s weight, gender, and the rate of alcohol consumption. For example, a person who weighs less may reach the legal limit faster than someone who weighs more. Furthermore, alcohol can impair a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, even if their BAC is below the legal limit. This is why law enforcement officers may still arrest individuals for DUI if they exhibit signs of impairment, such as erratic driving or slurred speech.

Implied Consent Law

Collin County has an implied consent law that mandates drivers to take a chemical test if they are arrested under the suspicion of DUI. This means that if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the driver must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test. Refusing to take the test can lead to an automatic driver’s license suspension for up to 180 days. It is important to note that even if a driver refuses the test, they can still be charged with DUI based on other evidence, such as field sobriety tests or witness testimony.