Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 28, 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.

Akins v. State, No. 02-0005-263 (Aug. 31, 2006) (McCoy, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; Livingston, J., concurs with opinion).: Held: Police officers had probable cause to arrest Appellant for an offense committed in their view, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, based on a reliable informant’s detailed information that police verified at the scene. Contrary to the concurrence’s conclusion that Appellant was merely detained for investigation when police handcuffed him, pointed their guns at him, placed him on the ground, and blocked his vehicle from leaving, the majority holds that the restriction on Appellant’s freedom of movement amounted to the degree associated with an arrest because the level of force used by the officers exceeded that which was necessary to maintain officer safety or to thwart any attempt by Appellant to frustrate questioning.; Concurrence: Although the State conceded that Appellant was arrested, it did not concede the timing of the arrest; therefore, the sole inquiry should be whether Appellant was detained for investigation when the investigators blocked Appellant’s truck, drew their weapons, placed Appellant on the ground, and placed him in handcuffs, or whether he was immediately under arrest at that point. The officers’ actions constituted reasonable force based on their concerns that Appellant was carrying weapons, that they were in a high crime/drug area, that Appellant was not alone, and that the area was semi-rural and Appellant could have escaped. Therefore, Appellant was not under arrest until after he told one of the officers that he had methamphetamine, thus allowing the officer to make a warrantless arrest for an offense committed in his presence.
Curtis v. State, No. 02-0005-102 (Aug. 31, 2006) (Gardner, J., joined by Holman, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony regarding problems at the Fort Worth crime lab when the State’s DNA expert worked there; the witness who would have provided the excluded testimony did not work at the lab until two years after the DNA testing relevant to this case was performed. Nor did the trial court err by admitting the results of a YSTR DNA test; the State proved that YSTR testing is relevant and reliable.; Dissent: Appellant should have been allowed to impeach the State’s DNA expert, who was also a fact witness, with the excluded affidavit and testimony. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence.