Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 15, 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.

Orr v. State,  No. 02-08-00143-CR  (Feb. 18, 2010)   (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs with opinion).  [Note: both opinions at the same link.]

Held:   The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support Appellant’s first-degree arson conviction, and the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress because Appellant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law had actual authority to consent to the investigators’ search of Appellant’s home. Appellant does not have standing to challenge the admissibility of testimony by the State’s arson expert on the ground that the State’s arson expert did not hold a license under Texas Occupations Code chapter 1702 because the expert’s technical violation of chapter 1702 did not violate any of Appellant’s personal rights. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting autopsy photographs or by denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial after the prosecutor asked an improper question concerning Appellant’s alleged abortion. The prosecutor’s closing argument was a reasonable deduction from and summation of the evidence, and the jury charge did not improperly distinguish between reasonable doubt and possible doubt.

Concurrence:   The arson expert did not violate chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code. Providing expertise to an investigator does not make a person an investigator and does not mean that person is engaged in the investigation business.

Wood Care Centers, Inc. v. Evangel Temple Assembly of God of Wichita Falls, Tex.,  No. 02-08-00300-CV  (Feb. 18, 2010)   (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Meier, JJ.).

Held:   The trial court erred by considering parol evidence to interpret the parties’ lease agreement. The error was not harmful, however, because the trial court’s ultimate interpretation of the lease agreement was correct. Further, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that Appellee did not breach the lease agreement and could terminate the lease agreement without liability.

Bazanes v. State,  No. 02-08-00358-CR  (Feb. 18, 2010)   (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, J.).

Held:   Bazanes was not egregiously harmed by the jury charge erroneously including the culpable mental states of knowingly and intentionally along with the requisite specific intent for indecency with a child in the application portion or by any error in the definition of sexual contact in the jury charge. Legally sufficient evidence existed to show that Bazanes acted with the specific intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desires, and Bazanes’s trial counsel was not ineffective.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «