"There They Are Right There!" - A Defective Terry Stop

The propriety of a Terry stop (a.k.a. investigative detention) can be, and often is, a hotly contested issue during pre-trial suppression hearings and on appeal.  I've written about the legal standard required for a Terry stop many times, but one can never get enough Terry law, so here it is again, complete with case citations, as recited by the 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth):

A temporary or investigative detention is a seizure.  Francis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref‘d).  An investigative detention occurs when an individual is encountered by a police officer, yields to the officer‘s display of authority, and is temporarily detained for purposes of an investigation.  Johnson v. State, 912 S.W.2d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).  Because an investigative detention is a seizure, reasonable suspicion must be shown by the officer to justify the seizure.  State v. Larue, 28 S.W.3d 549, 553 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

An officer conducts a lawful temporary detention when he has reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is violating the law. Ford, 158 S.W.3d at 492.  "[T]he police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."  Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)).  The articulable facts must show unusual activity, some evidence that connects the detainee to the unusual activity, and some indication that the unusual activity is related to a crime. Martinez, 2011 WL 2555712, at *2.  Articulable facts must amount to more than a mere inarticulate hunch, suspicion, or good faith suspicion that a crime was in progress. Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

In State v. Kerwick, a recent case designated for publication by the 2nd COA, the Court was called upon to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion when it suppressed the evidence of a defendant's warrantless arrest.  The arresting officer had been dispatched to the Stockyards after a brawl was reported outside a bar.  When he arrived, an unidentified person pointed at a group of people in a car and said "There they are right there."  The car was pulling away when the officer approached on foot and ordered the driver to stop.  The driver was later arrested for DWI.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court (or at least found that the ruling was not outside the reasonable zone of disagreement) that the officer did not have "reasonable suspicion" to justify the Terry stop when the only facts he had were that a brawl was reported and an unidentified person said "There they are."

While I agree that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop in this case, I think this case really hinged on the trial court's initial ruling.  The standard of review (abuse of discretion - outside the zone of reasonable disagreement) is very deferential and had the trial court ruled for the State, it would not be hard to imagine the appellate court upholding that ruling as well (with the exact same facts).  Perhaps an obvious observation on my part.
Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/

If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say...

After the defendant was convicted in the case of State v. Lucio, and the case proceeded to the punishment phase, the jury noticed something conspicuous about the defense case…nobody from the defendant’s family came to the witness stand to testify on his behalf. No poor momma with tears in her eyes. No sister or brother to testify about what a good person the defendant is at heart. Nothing. Just crickets. Curious about why nobody from the defendant’s family testified, the jury sent a question in to the trial judge while they were deliberating on the sentence:

Does the law prevent a family member from speaking during the sentencing phase, for the defendant?

Over defense counsel objection, the trial court provided the following response to the jury:

The law does not prohibit a family member from testifying on behalf of a defendant so long as the witness has relevant evidence related to an issue in the case. You have heard all of the witnesses who have been called to testify. Please continue your deliberations.

Of course, there were two inferences that the jury could reasonably draw from the instruction: (1) none of the available family members could provide relevant information, or (2) the defendant did not want to call any family members because they would not provide favorable testimony.

On appeal, the defense argued that the trial court’s instruction was an improper comment on the evidence. The 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) disagreed and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to settle the issue. Here’s what the CCA held:

We conclude that the general rule that prohibits the court from singling out a particular piece of evidence in its instructions to the jury given prior the jury deliberations does not necessarily apply when the court merely responds to the jury’s question concerning a subject identified by the jury.

The court noted that the court’s instruction was a correct statement of the law that did not improperly convey a “personal estimation of the strength or credibility” of evidence. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals.

Judge Meyers dissented, opining that:

the trial court’s instructions indicate to the jury that it is permissible to focus on the fact that the defendant’s family did not testify at punishment. In doing so, the judge expressed an opinion as to the weight of the evidence…

Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/