Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of March 29, 2010

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 (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

State v. Woodard,     No.   02-09-00052-CR    (Apr. 1, 2010)     (Gardner, J., joined by Walker, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: both opinions at the same link.]

Held:    A consensual encounter occurred between a police officer and Appellee. This encounter escalated into an investigative detention only after reasonable suspicion became apparent to the officer, through the totality of the circumstances, that Appellee had been driving while intoxicated.

Dissent:    The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record and the law—no officer observed Woodard commit a misdemeanor, the anonymous tip did not satisfy the article 14.01 requirement, and the detention was not consensual. Further, it is undisputed that there was no warrant to detain or arrest Woodard. Therefore the trial court’s ruling is correct under Steelman. Because the ruling is reasonably supported by the record and can be justified on this legal theory, the law requires that we affirm.

Tarrant County, Tex. v. McQuary,    No.  02-09-00306-CV    (Apr. 1, 2010)   (McCoy, J., joined by Walker and Meier, JJ.).

Held:     As a prerequisite to bringing a Whistleblower Act claim, a government employee must provide reasonable notice that she is making a Whistleblower Act claim in the initiation of the grievance or appeal procedures related to the suspension or termination of employment or adverse personnel action. The trial court should have granted Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction on Appellee’s Whistleblower Act claim because she failed to give Appellant reasonable notice and because Appellant did not thwart her efforts to follow the grievance procedure.

Robinson v. State,  No.  02-09-00027-CR    (Apr. 1, 2010)    (Livingston, J., joined by Walker, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: both opinions at the same link.]

Held:    Appellant forfeited his complaint that the trial court denied his constitutional rights by limiting his cross-examination of a witness because Appellant failed to raise a constitutional complaint at trial about that limitation. Also, Appellant did not preserve his complaint that the trial court improperly denied his motion for continuance because the motion was not written and sworn to as required by the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 29.03, .08 (Vernon 2006).

Dissent:    Appellant’s complaint that his cross-examination was truncated when the trial court refused to allow him to cross-examine the State’s witness until a fictitious punishment proceeding began was apparent to all concerned; the complaint was therefore sufficiently preserved. Further, the statutory requirement of a sworn motion for continuance does not supercede the constitutional requirement of a fair trial, and Appellant received an unfair trial and his rights to due process were violated when the trial court who caused the delay in the cross-examination of the witness refused, after hearing Appellant’s request on the record, to allow Appellant more time to correct the trial court’s mistake.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «