Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of December 17, 2012

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.

In re C.D.E, No. 02-12-00021-CV  (Dec. 21, 2012)   (Walker, J., joined by McCoy and Meier, JJ.).

Held: Under Texas Family Code section 161.001(1)(Q)(i), the evidence is legally insufficient to show that Father "knowingly [as opposed to negligently] engaged in criminal conduct"—the strict-liability offense of intoxication manslaughter—that resulted in his conviction.

Mustang Special Util. Dist. v. Providence Village, No. 02-12-00032-CV   (Nov. 21, 2012)  (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gabriel, JJ.).

 (Dec. 21, 2012) (op. on reh'g) (Meier, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and McCoy, J.).

Held: The trial court erred by denying Mustang’s jurisdictional challenges to Providence Village’s UDJA claim on the basis of governmental immunity because Providence Village’s suit pursuing a declaration that the 2005 agreement is invalid seeks to control or compel state action..

Ex parte Shaw, No. No. 02-12-00116-CR  (Dec. 21, 2012)  (Gabriel, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Meier, J.).

Facts: Appellant was held pending trial on three charges, only one of which he was indicted on within ninety days of the commencement of his detention.

Held: After the statutory period has elapsed, an indictment that was obtained on another pending charge within the statutory period does not invoke an exception to code of criminal procedure article 17.151's requirement that an accused be released from detention on personal bond or reduced bond on the cases for which the State is not ready for trial within the statutory period. Because the State was not ready for trial within the statutory period, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to release Appellant on personal bond or lowered bail amount on the two un-indicted cases after the statutory period had elapsed. The order denying habeas relief is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Gilmore v. State, No. 02-11-00273-CR   (Dec. 21, 2012)  (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and Meier, JJ.).

Held: The trial court did not err by admitting two witnesses' in-court and out-of-court identifications of Appellant, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed aggravated assault as a principal. Any error by the trial court in charging the jury on the law of parties under penal code section 7.02(b) was harmless. Further, we cannot say that the trial court, under the circumstances of this case, erred in failing to submit to the jury other unindicted offenses or the lesser-included offenses of conspiracy, deadly conduct, terroristic threat, and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «