Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 4, 2007

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.

Laster v. State, No. 02-06-00364-CR (June 7, 2007) (Livingston, J., joined by Holman, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The circumstantial evidence is legally and factually sufficient to show Appellant's intent to secrete or hold the complainant in a place where she was not likely to be found, the only challenged element of Appellant's conviction for attempted aggravated kidnapping. Appellant, a complete stranger to the complainant, an eight-year-old girl who was walking alone on a sidewalk with her ten-year-old brother, grabbed the complainant on the arm and around her waist and tried to pull her away from her brother. Although the complainant yelled at her brother to help her, Appellant did not let go of her until a car drove by, which is evidence of his consciousness of guilt. A jury could reasonably infer from these facts that Appellant intended to isolate the complainant from her brother, the only person who was available to offer her assistance.; Dissent: There is no evidence of Appellant's intent to secrete the complainant or to hold her in a place where she was not likely to be found. Consequently, the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for attempted aggravated kidnapping.
Sartain v. State, No. 02-06-00037-CR (June 7, 2007) (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that the arresting officer was Officer "J. Bell," to establish that Appellant struck Officer Bell with his hand, to establish that Appellant used force, and to establish that Officer Bell was attempting to arrest or search Appellant.; Dissent: The information and jury charge named J. Bell as a police officer. J. Bell did not testify; Cleat Bell did. No evidence shows that J. Bell and Cleat Bell are the same person, that J. Bell is a police officer, or that Appellant committed any crime against J. Bell. The evidence is therefore legally insufficient to support Appellant's conviction.