State v. Gray

This case and Ross differ in that the trial court granted Ross's motion without making specific findings of fact, while this trial court granted the defendant's motion and made specific findings of fact. Those findings permitted the court of appeals to review the ruling without infringing on the trial court's discretion to determine the facts.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The defendant moved to suppress evidence on the ground that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize him. The only evidence was the uncontradicted testimony of the officers. The trial court granted the motion to suppress. The state appealed. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. HOLDING:Affirmed. In State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Cr. App. 2000), the court held that the trial court’s decision should have been affirmed because of the deference due its fact-findings: “In a motion to suppress hearing, the trial court is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Accordingly, the judge may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony, even if that testimony is not controverted. This is so because it is the trial court that observes first hand the demeanor and appearance of a witness, as opposed to an appellate court which can only read an impersonal record.” “Furthermore, when the trial court fails to file findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and assume that the trial court made implicit findings of fact that support its ruling as long as those findings are supported by the record. If the trial judge’s decision is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case, the decision will be sustained.” This case and Ross differ is that the trial court granted Ross’s motion without making specific findings of fact, while this trial court granted Gray’s motion and made specific findings of fact. The Court of Criminal Appeals believes those findings permitted the court of appeals to review the ruling without infringing on the trial court’s discretion to determine the facts. OPINION:Womack, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

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.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.