Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 6, 2013

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. York , Nos.  02-12-00050-CR and 02-12-00051-CR  (May 9, 2013) (McCoy, J., joined by Meier, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held: The magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed for the search warrant's issuance because the affiant, who had experience in narcotics investigations, listed facts—including finding drug residue in the residence's trash can along with mail addressed to Appellant—that gave rise to a fair probability that controlled substances would be found at the specified address.

Dissent: The trial court properly suppressed the evidence obtained pursuant to the challenged warrant because no probable cause supported the seizure. No surveillance revealed that anyone observed any illegal activities at the Feathering address. Nowhere in the affidavit is there any mention that anyone saw contraband in the house on Feathering. Nowhere is there any mention that anyone bought any contraband through Marlin Derrell York, or from him, whether at the Feathering address or near the Feathering address. Nowhere in the affidavit is there any mention of any unusual activity at or near the Feathering address. There was no indication that the mail in Marlin York's name was found in the same trash bag as the trash with the drug residue found in a public area beyond York's curtilage. Further, the two trash-runs, almost a month apart, were too remote from each other, and the final trash run was too remote from the seizure of the evidence. Finally, the connection between the affidavit and York's wife, Shavonia Tamika York, was even more attenuated.

Vanbelle v. State, No. No.02-12-00075-CR   (May 9, 2013)  (Livingston, C.J., joined by Gabriel, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Dissent: Jurors are presumed to follow the instructions in a jury charge. When faced with a jury charge containing both correct and incorrect instructions, jurors are presumed to pinpoint and to follow the correct instructions and to disregard the incorrect instructions. These conflicting presumptions, divorced from reality, demonstrate how little relevance the jury charge now has in criminal cases.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «