Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 23, 2006

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. Funderburk, No. 02-0005-249 (Jan. 26, 2006) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, J.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board's plea to the jurisdiction. The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("the Act") waives sovereign immunity from suit as to entities defined by the Act as employers, and Appellant falls within the Act's definition of an employer because it is a state instrumentality. Thus, Appellant was not immune from suit for any violations of the Act.
Rangel v. State , No. 02-0004-514 (Jan. 26, 2006) (Livingston, J., joined by Holman, J.; Dauphinot, J. dissents and concurs with opinion).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the child victim was unavailable to testify and that the CPS investigator was neutral and detached as required by article 38.071 of the code of criminal procedure. Appellant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because he had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim through written interrogatories as provided by article 38.071(2)(b). The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings that Appellant committed one count of indecency with a child and two counts of aggravated sexual assault. It was harmful error for the trial court not to require the State to elect among the different offenses listed in count IV because we are unable to determine whether the jury's verdict was unanimous as to any of the count IV offenses.; Dissent and Concurrence: The majority correctly disposes of the sufficiency and jury charge issues, but the article 38.071 provision for written interrogatories does not satisfy the confrontation and cross-examination requirements of due process. It compounds the problem by allowing the creation of yet another testimonial statement that violates the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination.