Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 5, 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.

Rangel v. State, No. 02-0004-514 (June 5, 2006) (op. on State's PDR) (Livingston, J., joined by Holman, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs and dissents with opinion).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the child victim was unavailable to testify and that the CPS investigator was neutral and detached as required by article 38.071 of the code of criminal procedure. Appellant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because he had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim through written interrogatories as provided by article 38.071(2)(b). It was harmful error for the trial court not to require the jury's verdict to be unanimous in count IV The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings that Appellant committed one count of indecency with a child and two counts of aggravated sexual assault. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.; Dissent and Concurrence: The majority correctly disposes of the sufficiency and jury charge issues, but the article 38.071 provision for written interrogatories does not satisfy the confrontation and cross-examination requirements of due process. It compounds the problem by allowing the creation of yet another testimonial statement that violates the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination.
Ex parte Lewis, No. 02-0006-018 (June 8, 2006) (McCoy, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Livingston, J.).: Held: The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from the trial court's dismissal of an application for writ of habeas corpus for want of prosecution or an appeal from the trial court's order denying a request for hearing on an application for writ of habeas corpus because these orders do not rule on the merits of the applicant's claims.