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:Defendant was convicted of five counts of gambling offenses, including gambling promotion, keeping a gambling place and possession of gambling devices and paraphernalia. Defendant appealed. The 12th Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) held that the warrant authorizing the search of the business premises did not authorize the search of the defendant’s home, a red caboose. The CCA reversed the decision and remanded the case to the 12th Court for it to conduct a harm analysis. In response, the 12th Court held that the error was nonconstitutional error and was harmful. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The CCA held that the error was constitutional and stated that the 12th Court should have used the harm standard set forth in Rule 44.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. If this were the only error the 12th Court made in its analysis, the court stated, the result would remain the same, and there would be no need to remand. But the CCA found “a more troublesome issue.” In its brief analysis, the 12th Court stated that “[c]onsideration of the inadmissible evidence was necessary for conviction on some of the counts and helpful to convict on the remaining counts. Therefore, the error in admitting the evidence seized from the red caboose had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” In conducting a harm analysis, the CCA stated that courts of appeals must address “every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.” Such courts may not conclude that constitutional error is harmless, unless they determine “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.” Here, the court stated, the 12th Court made no mention of the remaining legally obtained evidence or whether that evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction absent the illegally obtained evidence. The 12th Court did not, the CCA pointed out, consider the evidence as it related to each individual count, and whether the illegally obtained evidence was cumulative or no more incriminating than that which was legally obtained. OPINION:Keasler, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, P.J., Meyers, Womack, Johnson and Hervey, J.J., joined. CONCURRENCE:Price, Holcomb, and Cochran, J.J., concurred without opinion.

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.