Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant George DeShawn Woods pleaded guilty to a charge of evading arrest or detention under Texas Penal Code, 38.04. Appellant then filed an appeal with the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). Appellant appealed the ruling of the trial court which denied his motion to suppress evidence. The court of appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. HOLDING:The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the trial court’s judgment affirmed. The court addresses whether there is constitutional or statutory authority for a defendant to raise and for a trial court to determine, before trial, the legality of a seizure of a defendant in a prosecution for the offense of evading arrest or detention under Texas Penal Code 38.04. The court concludes that the statutes authorizing pretrial proceedings do not contemplate a “mini-trial” on the sufficiency of the evidence to support an element of the offense. By asking the trial judge to suppress the arrest, the details of the appellant’s flight, and the evasion by appellant of his detention by the police officer, the appellant was in effect asking the trial judge to rule on whether the prosecution had proof of an element of the offense. The purpose of a pre-trial motion is to address preliminary matters, not the merits of the case itself. Preliminary matters are those issues that can be determined before there is a trial on the general issue of the case. The court states that the appellant tried to argue that the prosecution could not prove one of the elements of the crime: the prosecution could not prove the detention that he evaded was lawful. If the trial judge granted the motion for suppression of the flight and ensuing arrest, the state could no longer prosecute the appellant for evading detention. The appellant was asking the judge to rule whether or not an offense had actually been committed. The court concludes that, because the issue was improperly raised in a pretrial motion to suppress, the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s ruling. OPINION:Lawrence E. Meyers, J. , delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., join. Womack, J., concurs.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.