Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Stevens v. State, No. 02-05-00237-CR (Aug. 23, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Cayce, C.J and Livingston, J.).: Held: The evidence is factually sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for capital murder of a two-year-old child whom she had been babysitting; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an elderly adult who was in ill health to testify via two-way closed circuit television; the erroneous admission of a social worker's testimony that relayed hearsay was not harmful because the hearsay declarant gave the same testimony at trial without objection; and the trial court did not violate Appellant's due process rights by excluding evidence that someone else committed the offense because the evidence that Appellant attempted to admit to establish a defense was irrelevant, cumulative, and/or constituted hearsay.
Gay v. State, No. 02-06-00114-CR (Aug. 23, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J.;Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The trial court properly instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of reckless bodily injury to a child where the evidence established that Appellant pinched or rubbed the child's face to conceal a bite mark that the child had received at Appellant's daycare center. A jury could rationally have believed that it was not Appellant's intention to harm the child, but rather it was her intention to avoid civil litigation by concealing the bite wound that the child had already received. Therefore, some evidence exists in the record that if Appellant is guilty, she is guilty only of the lesser included offense of recklessly causing bodily injury to a child.; Dissent: The majority provides that a jury could rationally conclude that Appellant intended to try to avoid civil litigation by concealing the bite wound. The majority does not direct us to any evidence in the record that Appellant did not intend to cause a bruise over the bite wound but only caused bodily injury by recklessly inflicting pain. If there is not some evidence that Appellant, if guilty, is guilty only of reckless injury, then the trial court erred by permitting the jury to convict on the lesser offense.
State v. Cox, No. 02-06-00171-CR (Aug. 23, 2007) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Livingston, Gardner, Walker, and McCoy, JJ.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion, joined by Holman, J.).: Held: The docket sheet entry in this case does not satisfy the requirements of a signed written order; therefore, there is no order in the record from which the State may appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.; Dissent: Whether the docket sheet entry is an order is irrelevant; the docket sheet entry merely makes the date triggering the appellate timetable more obvious. The trial court's dictating its ruling into the record in the presence of both the State and the defense constituted an appealable order granting the defendant's motion to suppress, and the State's appellate timetable ran from that date. Because the State filed its appeal too late, we should dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and allow the case to proceed in the trial court without the suppressed evidence.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Gunderson, Inc., No. 2-06-274-CV (Aug. 23, 2007) (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Livingston, J.).: Held: The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees without conducting a choice of law analysis. Appellant never requested the trial court to judicially notice the law of any other state under rule of evidence 202; therefore, the trial court could assume that the law of any other state, even if it governed the dispute, is identical to Texas law. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment because the Texas statute of repose barred all of Appellant's claims, including its claim for contractual indemnity.

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 20, 2007