Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of September 22, 2014

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.

Town of Annetta S., Tex. v. Seadrift Dev., L.P.,  No. 02-12-00171-CV, (Sept. 25, 2014) (orig. proceeding) (Walker, J., joined by Meier, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion.).

Held:  The Town's Ordinance 011 violates Texas Local Government Code section 212.003(a)(4), which states that a municipality "shall not regulate" within its extraterritorial jurisdiction the number of residential units that can be built per acre of land, and the summary-judgment evidence establishes that Seadrift's preliminary plat was denied based on the provision of Ordinance 011 that violates section 212.003(a)(4).

Dissent:  Section 212.003 does not regulate density, and even if it did, the ordinance does not regulate density of residents in the Town's ETJ.

 

Rivas v. State, Nos. 02-12-00062-CR, 02-12-00063-CR (Sept. 25, 2014) (op. on remand) (per curiam).

Held:  The court of criminal appeals remanded this case for reconsideration in light of Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013), in which the United States Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the home's contents was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Excluding from consideration the drug-sniffing dog's alert to appellant's apartment door, a magistrate could still have reasonably found that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause based on the detailed and recent information provided by a named informant.

 

Bosquez v. State, Nos. 02-13-00401-CR, 02-13-00402-CR (Sept. 25, 2014) (Gabriel, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion.).

Held:  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Appellant's prior consistent statement because the State did not allege that he recently fabricated his in-court testimony regarding the offense to which the prior statement related and because the prior statement was not made before Appellant had a motive to fabricate; thus, the prior statement was inadmissible hearsay under evidentiary rule 613(c). Even if the trial court erred, any error did not substantially or injuriously affect the jury's verdict and must be disregarded.

Dissent:  The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the video offered by Appellant to rebut the State's allegation of recent fabrication regarding the June drug case, and the error was harmful.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «