Articles Posted in Family Violence

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.

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.

The statements of the accused often play a pivotal role in criminal cases, especially those involving family violence. Depending on the content of the statement, it can either bolster the prosecution’s case or provide a strong defense for the accused. A well-crafted statement that establishes a reasonable doubt or challenges the credibility of the alleged victim’s testimony can significantly impact the outcome of the case. Conversely, a statement that admits guilt or contains incriminating statements can strengthen the prosecution’s case against the defendant.

Criteria for Admissibility of a Defendant’s Statement in Texas

For a defendant’s statement to be admissible in court, it must meet specific criteria as outlined by Texas law. The following factors are considered when determining the admissibility of a defendant’s statement:

In a recent Texas criminal case, the State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas after a ruling from the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the Appellant in a criminal case was entitled to a concurrent causation jury instruction, reversing in part a judgment by the trial court. The Appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment under Texas Penal Code § 22.04 for recklessly, by omission, causing serious bodily injury to her child and failing to protect her child from being struck against a hard surface by her husband and subsequently failing to provide medical care.

Facts of the Case

On June 29, 2013, the Appellant was in the kitchen of her family home in Denver City, Texas, when her husband began to choke and shout expletives at their youngest child. The couple’s older daughter testified that the Appellant subsequently entered the room and instructed her husband to “stop hurting the baby.” Later that night, the Appellant noticed that the youngest child was experiencing seizure-like symptoms and called her mother-in-law, who was a retired nurse, to ask for advice. The mother-in-law instructed the Appellant to give the youngest child a Tylenol and continue monitoring her. The next day, the child began to exhibit seizure-like symptoms again, so the couple decided to bring her to Covenant Hospital in Lubbock instead of the local hospital in Denver City. While the Appellant originally told investigators that they drove nearly an hour to Lubbock because they did not trust the doctors in Denver City, later testimony revealed the decision was made to avoid Child Protective Services (CPS).

At the hospital, it became apparent that the child’s injuries had resulted from non-accidental abuse, and the staff contacted CPS and the Lubbock Police Department to coordinate an investigation. Based on the police investigation and medical findings regarding the injury, both the parents were arrested and charged under Texas Penal Code § 22.04. At trial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, she raised two grounds for review: (1) the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on concurrent causation, and (2) the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support a conviction under § 22.04 of the Texas Penal Code. The appellate court sustained the Appellant’s first issue, reversing the judgment of the trial court. On the second issue, the appellate court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient, to find both Appellant’s omissions caused serious bodily injury to the child beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue reading

Criminal, statutes in Texas and nationwide have long included specific provisions to address domestic violence offenses. Early statutes were only able to protect spouses from the alleged abuse, but the laws have developed in a way that now includes cohabitating parents, and even dating partners who do not live together and share no children. The recent expansion of the definition of domestic violence under federal law to include “dating violence” may affect the civil rights of Texans who have been accused of domestic violence offenses. More specifically, a conviction may mean that you are prevented from legally owning a gun, despite your Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. The Constitution protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Although many challenges to the Second Amendment have failed over the years, the U.S. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can restrict people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense from owning firearms. Congress passed such a law in 1968, and it has been used to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have committed domestic violence. Over the years, courts have upheld this restriction on gun ownership, finding that it is a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As the definition of domestic violence has expanded under both Texas and Federal law, the application of the federal law restricting gun ownership has become broader. Cases that in the past would not have qualified for a firearm restriction are now serving as the basis of a restriction. The federal law that restricts gun ownership is applied automatically to any person convicted of a state-level domestic violence offense or who is subject to a domestic violence-related protective order.