Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of July 23, 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.

In re J.B.C., No. 02-06-00175-CV (July 26, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Holman and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: There was factually sufficient evidence that juvenile engaged in delinquent conduct by murdering his grandmother. Although J.B.C. relied on the lack of physical and forensic evidence linking him to his grandmother's murder and proffered a suicide theory as the manner of death, there was still factually sufficient evidence that he committed the murder. Specifically, the grandmother was found face down with a gunshot wound to the back right side of her head and with the gun lying underneath her body. Moreover, J.B.C. confessed to the crime and witness testimony placed him near his grandmother's bedroom at the time she was shot.
Richmond Condominiums v. Skipworth Commercial Plumbing, Inc., No. 02-05-00401-CV (July 26, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Because a trial judge's authority to impose "death penalty" sanctions is limited by due process concerns, the judge must first consider the availability of lesser sanctions before imposing a death penalty sanction. Because Richmond Condominiums failed to request a sanction less than death penalty sanctions, we are constrained to hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sanction Skipworth's counsel for the ex parte contact with the joint venturers. Furthermore, because Richmond Condominiums got the insurance proof of loss admitted into evidence for all purposes, it could not later complain that it was unfairly forced to interject insurance into the case. Lastly, although the trial court committed error by admitting speculative testimony from nonexperts, such error was harmless.