|
By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2007
Summaries
2006
Summaries
2005
Summaries
2004
Summaries 2003
Summaries 2002
Summaries 2001
Summaries 2000
Summaries 1999
Summaries
Incident
report involving juvenile suspect not subject to disclosure under Public
Information Act even if the name of the juvenile is withheld [OR2001-6133]
(02-1-14).
On December 31, 2001, the
Attorney General ruled in a Public Information Act letter that an incident
report involving a car allegedly stolen by a juvenile is not subject to
disclose even if the name of the juvenile is withheld.
Jurors
in sexual assault on a child criminal trial not disqualified because they agreed
to donate jury fees to a juvenile program [Farr v. State] (02-1-13).
On December 18, 2001, the
Dallas Court of Appeals held that six members of a jury that served in an
sexual assault on a child trial were not disqualified from service for implied
bias because they checked off a form donating their daily jury fees to the
juvenile department and to purchase Christmas gifts for foster children.
Attorney
General says that 300 feet of school property provision in mandatory removal
section does not apply to mandatory expulsion for a felony [JC-0446] (02-1-12).
On December 27, 2001, the Attorney General
opined that the provision in the mandatory removal section of the Education
Code reaching conduct that occurs within 300 feet of school property does not
apply to the provision mandating expulsion for a drug or alcohol felony.
Evidence
was sufficient to support a TYC commitment in an assault on a teacher case [In
re V.S.] (02-1-11).
On December 19, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support
the juvenile court's decision to commit the respondent to the TYC although he
had no prior juvenile referrals and inflicted no bodily injury on the victim.
Evidence
was factually sufficient to support TYC commitment for sexual offenses against a
child [In re D.W.A.] (02-1-10).
On December 13, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually sufficient to
support the juvenile court's decision to commit a respondent to TYC who had
committed indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Information
about death of resident of juvenile detention facility not public [OR2001-5795]
(02-1-09).
On December 12, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act opinion that information about the death of
a juvenile in a detention facility cannot be disclosed because of the child
abuse investigation provision of the Family Code.
El Paso
Court of Appeals holds that removal from home findings of section 54.04 must
also be used in modifications under section 54.05 [In re L.R.] (02-1-08).
On December 13, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held, contrary to the holdings by other courts of appeal, that the
removal from home findings required by section 54.04 to be made in disposition
proceedings must also be made when a child is removed from his home in a
modification proceeding under section 54.05.
Service
of modification summons on guardian ad litem not required when respondent's
mother was served and appeared at the hearing [In re R.M.R.] (02-1-07).
On December 6, 2001, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that it was not reversible error for the juvenile court
to proceed with a hearing to modify disposition when the respondent's mother
was served and present at the hearing. Failure to serve a guardian ad litem
who had been appointed at the detention hearing was not error, or if it was,
not preserved for appellate review.
Criminal
court lacked jurisdiction over uncertified juvenile offense under pre-1996
procedure [Ex parte Waggoner] (02-1-06).
On December 5, 2001, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that under the procedure in place before 1996, the criminal court
lacked jurisdiction over an offense committed by applicant while a juvenile
that had not been certified to criminal court. No pre-trial objection in the
criminal court was required under the pre-1996 procedure.
County is
liable for the wrongful discharge of a juvenile detention center employee
[Dallas Co. v. Holmes] (02-1-05).
On December 5, 2001, the Dallas Court of
Appeals upheld an award of $100,000 in damages against Dallas County for the
wrongful discharge of an employee of the Dallas County Juvenile Detention
Center.
Attorney
General says counties may give money to non-profit organizations that serve
children [JC-0439] (02-1-04).
On December 3, 2001, the Attorney General
stated in an opinion that counties may expend public funds for the public
purpose of child welfare and services by granting such funds to non-profit
organizations to provide those services. It is for the commissioners courts to
decide whether the expenditures are in the public interest.
Entering
an unnegotiated plea of guilty in criminal court waives appellate review of any
errors in the juvenile court certification process [Faisst v. State] (02-1-03).
On November 30, 2001, the Tyler Court of
Appeals held that when the juvenile entered an unnegotiated plea of guilty in
criminal court she waived appellate review of any errors in the juvenile court
certification proceedings because the criminal judgment of conviction was
independent of any such errors.
Motor
vehicle accident report involving a juvenile must be disclosed under the Public
Information Act [OR2001-5578] (02-1-02).
On November 30, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act opinion that a motor vehicle accident report
involving a juvenile must be disclosed upon request under a Transportation
Code amendment enacted in 2001.
Certified
juvenile is not entitled to necessity, self-defense or provocation instructions
in prosecution for murder of step-father [Contreras v. State] (02-1-01).
On November 27, 2001, the Amarillo Court of
Appeals, writing on remand from a reversal of its previous judgment by the
Court of Criminal Appeals, held that a certified juvenile's claim of sexual
abuse of herself and her younger sister by her step-father did not require the
criminal court judge to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity or
self-defense in her trial for murder of the step-father, nor did it require
the court to instruct the jury at penalty on the provocation mitigation to
murder as a second degree felony.
Gang
database information not available under the Public Information Act
[OR2001-5349] (01-4-55).
On November 16, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act opinion that information in the DPS gang
database is not subject to disclosure as public information.
Juvenile
has no right under the Public Information Act to see a law enforcement incident
report that deals with him [OR2001-5316] (01-4-54).
On November 16, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act opinion that a juvenile has no right to see
a law enforcement incident report that names him as a suspect.
No
error in charging burglary with intent to commit assault following certification
for aggravated assault [Jones v. State] (01-4-53).
On November 15, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals upheld a conviction for burglary with intent to commit aggravated
assault in a case that was certified from the juvenile court for aggravated
assault. There was no fatal variance since the same transaction was the
subject of both the certification order and the indictment.
Detour to
recover stolen property on way to juvenile processing office violates Family
Code and requires exclusion of testimony about property [Roquemore v. State]
(01-4-52).
On November 14, 2001, the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals held that when a juvenile taken into police custody
volunteered a confession and offered to take the officer to recover property
stolen in the offense, the officer should not have detoured to recover the
stolen property en route to the juvenile processing office.
Judge of
court not designated as juvenile court may sit for judge of court designated as
juvenile court to hear a case filed in latter court [In re C.G.] (01-4-51).
On November 14, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the judge of a court that may not have been designated by
the juvenile board to hear juvenile cases may sit for the judge of a court
that has been designated a juvenile court in order to hear a juvenile case
filed in the latter court.
Certified
case was properly transferred from one district court to another under local
administrative rule [Bishop v. State] (01-4-50).
On November 1, 2001, the Amarillo Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile case certified to one district court was properly
transferred to another district court under a local administrative plan for
random filing of criminal cases in district courts.
An
untimely notice of appeal was not corrected by showing a late notice of the
order appealed from [In re M.M.] (01-4-49).
On October 31, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a late notice of appeal was not corrected by an effort to
show that counsel did not receive timely notice of the revocation order
appealed from.
Records
of certifications in the possession of TJPC are confidential under the Public
Information Act [OR2001-4990] (01-4-48).
On October 31, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that records of certifications to criminal
court in the possession of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission are
confidential under the Public Information Act.
Curfew
records are not public under the juvenile confidentiality provision of and
judicial exception to the Public Information Act [OR2001-4901] (01-4-47).
On October 26, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that records of juvenile curfew cases are
not public. Law enforcement records of curfew violations are confidential
under the Family Code juvenile confidentiality provision and judicial records
in Municipal Court of the same violations come within the judicial exception
to the Public Information Act.
State did
not justify delay in seeking certification of 18 year old [Webb v. State]
(01-4-46).
On October 25, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the State did not justify its delay in seeking certification
of an 18-year-old respondent, that the defect is jurisdictional, and that a
showing of harm is not required.
Incident
report identifying child crime victim is not confidential under juvenile
confidentiality provision [OR2001-4867] (01-4-45).
On October 25, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that a law enforcement incident report
identifying a child crime victim is not confidential under the juvenile
confidentiality provision
Attorney
General says that juvenile confidentiality rule does not apply to children
younger than 10 [OR2001-4805] (01-4-44).
On October 23, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act letter that the juvenile confidentiality provision
does not apply to a law enforcement incident report about conduct by an
individual while younger than ten years of age because such a person is not a
child as defined by Section 51.02 of the Family Code.
Respondent
waived disposition jury in writing before adjudication hearing [In re C.P.]
(01-4-43).
On October 25, 2001, the Dallas Court of
Appeals held that the respondent waived her right to a jury at disposition in
writing before the adjudication hearing began, thereby mooting a possibly
defective oral admonition given at the beginning of the adjudication hearing.
Juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion in transferring respondent from TYC to TDCJ
under the determinate sentence act [In re D.V.] (01-4-42).
On October 24, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
transferring a respondent from TYC to TDCJ in view of the numerous
disciplinary violations committed by respondent and his refusal to participate
in programs offered to him.
Child
Protective Services is not entitled to see a juvenile law enforcement incident
report [OR2001-4788] (01-4-41).
On October 22, 2001, the Attorney General in a
Public Information Act opinion ruled that Child Protective Services is not
entitled to see a law enforcement incident report concerning a juvenile.
Evidence
was legally and factually sufficient to support adjudication for aggravated
assault; oral removal from home dispositional findings not required (01-4-40).
On October 18, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient to
support an adjudication for aggravated assault in a drive-by shooting setting.
The court also held that when there are adequate written removal from home
findings there is no need for an oral recitation of those same findings.
Failure
of juvenile court to include two removal from home findings in dispositional
order corrected on appeal by reforming judgment to include those findings from
the court's oral recitation of them [In re M.R.L.] (01-4-39).
On October 18, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in committing a respondent adjudicated for aggravated robbery of a
bank to TYC for five years. It also reformed the dispositional order to
reflect the court's oral findings on the three mandatory removal from home
findings.
Failure
of counsel to object to omission of juvenile record admonition was ineffective
assistance of counsel but no prejudice to respondent shown [In re T.D.S.]
(01-4-38).
On October 4, 2001, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that the failure of defense counsel to object to the juvenile
court's not admonishing the respondent as to the admissibility of a juvenile
record in criminal proceedings was ineffective assistance of counsel. However,
the respondent failed to prove that but for that ineffective assistance he
would not have plead true and would have gone to trial.
Law
enforcement officer may arrest a TYC escapee without a warrant [Martinez v.
State] (01-4-37).
On October 17, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that an arrest of a TYC escapee without a warrant was lawful
under a provision of the Human Resources Code. Consequently, a
subsequently-obtained confession was admissible in evidence following
certification to criminal court.
Law
enforcement report about conduct by a 17-year-old suspect is not confidential
under the Family Code [OR2001-4680] (01-4-36).
On October 16, 2001, the Attorney General
stated in a Public Information Act opinion that an incident report dealing
with conduct by a 17-year-old is not confidential under the Family Code
because the suspect is not a juvenile.
Attorney
General says that juvenile records lose their confidentiality when the
respondent is certified to criminal court [OR2001-4660] (01-4-35).
On October 15, 2001, the Attorney General
stated in a Public Information Act opinion that juvenile records lose their
confidentiality once the juvenile is certified to criminal court for
prosecution as an adult. The opinion dealt with the law prior to its amendment
in 1995.
Delay in
taking the juvenile to a processing office was justified by the need to secure
the scene of the arrest [In re J.D.] (01-4-34).
On October 10, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a delay to secure the scene of the arrest was justified
before the respondent was taken to a juvenile processing office; that the
designation of the office was not too general; and that the respondent was not
detained beyond the statutory maximum period.
Warrantless
search of juvenile's home justified as an emergency [In re J.D.] (01-4-33).
On October 10, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that police officers were justified in conducting a warrantless
search of a juvenile's home in the belief that they were dealing with a
burglary in progress. Evidence seized was admissible even though there was no
burglary.
Counsel
was not ineffective in aggravated assault trial [In re J.V.] (01-4-32).
On October 4, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance in the
trial of an aggravated assault case.
Attorney
General says juvenile is entitled to see alcohol blood tests results but others
are not [OR2001-4438] (01-4-31).
On October 3, 2001, the Attorney General said
in a Public Information Act opinion that a juvenile, through his attorney, is
entitled to see alcohol blood test results, but others are not entitled to see
those results.
Attorney
General says that parent who filed a runaway report with police is not entitled
to see it [OR2001-4486] (01-4-30).
On October 5, 2001, the Attorney General in a
Public Information Act opinion said that a parent who filed runaway reports on
her son is not entitled to see those reports that were filed before January 1,
1996.
Evidence
legally and factually sufficient to support indecency with a child adjudication
[In re P.M.S.] (01-4-29).
On October 4, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove that the
respondent touched the child complainant with the required intent.
Under
Human Resources Code, peace officer may arrest TYC escapee without a warrant
[Martinez v. State] (01-4-28).
On September 28, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals upheld the arrest of a juvenile without a warrant because he was
reported to be a TYC escapee.
Court of
Appeals threatens attorney with disciplinary sanctions for not citing contrary
authority and for pursuing frivolous appeal [In re R.D.W.] (01-4-27).
On September 28, 2001, the Dallas Court of
Appeals threatened to impose disciplinary sanctions against the attorney for
the juvenile respondent for failure to cite authority contrary to the position
he was espousing and for pursuing a frivolous appeal.
Requiring
sex offender registration without requiring a finding of danger to society is
constitutional [In re R.M.] (01-4-26).
On September 26, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that due process of law is not violated by requiring a juvenile
sex offender to register without also requiring a finding that he poses a
danger to society.
Juvenile
records maintained by a municipal court prosecutor are excepted from disclosure
[OR2001-4231] (01-4-25).
On September 20, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in an Public Information Act opinion that juvenile records created by a
municipal court but maintained by the city attorney are not public records
because they are made confidential by Family Code Section 58.007(b).
Parents
are not entitled under the Public Information Act to see a police incident
report about their son [OR2001-4279] (01-4-24).
On September 24, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act letter that a parent is not entitled to see
a police incident report concerning his or her child. Parents have no special
right to such information under the Act.
Attorney
General explains informer's privilege exception to Public Information Act
[OR2001-4297] (01-4-23).
On September 23, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act letter that information concerning juvenile
police informants is excepted from disclosure. The AG also explained the
litigation exception to the Act.
Double
jeopardy was not violated by placing juvenile in boot camp following expulsion
and in adjudicating him for burglaries of vehicles committed at about the same
time [In re T.W.] (01-4-22).
On September 20, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that double jeopardy principles were not
violated when the respondent, on probation, was placed in a residential boot
camp following school expulsion and later was adjudicated for four burglaries
of vehicles that occurred at about the same time. The boot camp placement was
for the behavior that led to expulsion not for the vehicle burglaries.
Evidence
was sufficient for a false alarm adjudication for an angry threat made in the
hall to burn down the school; TYC commitment for offense [In re C.R.K.]
(01-4-21).
On August 9, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that evidence that the respondent, after being denied permission
to leave school early, walked into the hall and shouted angrily that he would
burn down the school was sufficient to support an adjudication for false alarm
and a TYC commitment.
Personal
use of a deadly weapon is not required for an adjudication that the juvenile was
a party to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon [In re S.R.C.] (01-4-20).
On September 13, 2001, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that it is not necessary to find that the respondent personally
used the deadly weapon to adjudicate him delinquent for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. Unlike the deadly weapon finding under the determinate
sentence act, personal use is not required; party liability is sufficient.
Motion
for new trial not needed to preserve a factual sufficiency claim for appellate
review [In re J.L.H.] (01-4-19).
On September 13, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals said that, contrary to what the Texas Supreme Court held in 1993, a
motion for new trial is not needed to preserve a claim of factual sufficiency
for appellate review. In the years since 1993, the El Paso Court of Appeals
believed, the juvenile system has been transformed from a benevolent civil
system into a punitive criminal system. This change justified using the
criminal rule, which does not require a motion for new trial.
The
juvenile court has no duty to order a fitness hearing without a motion to do so
[In re E.M.R.] (01-4-18).
On August 31, 2001, the Corpus Christi Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court under Family Code Section 55.31 has no
duty to order a fitness to stand trial hearing in the absence of a motion from
a party requesting it.
Parental
notification requirement does not apply to the questioning of a juvenile at the
station who is not in custody [In re E.M.R.] (01-4-17).
On August 31, 2001, the Corpus Christi Court of
Appeals held that when a juvenile is taken to the station for interrogation
but is not in police custody, the requirement of parental notification does
not apply.
Visitation
and other records maintained by the juvenile probation department are not
subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act [OR2001-3866] (01-4-16).
On August 31, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that juvenile probation department records
concerning visitation with a named juvenile who was in detention are not
public records under the Act.
Tape of
9-1-1 call about school shooting is excepted from disclosure under the Public
Information Act as juvenile information although the juvenile is dead
[OR2001-3350] (01-4-15).
On August 1, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that the tape of a 9-1-1 call is excepted
from disclosure as juvenile information although the juvenile in question is
dead.
A
juvenile probation department is required by the Public Information Act to
disclose most of the requestor's personnel file [OR2001-2777] (01-4-14).
On June 28, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in
a Public Information Act opinion that the litigation exception to the Act did
not apply to excuse disclosure of information in the requestor's juvenile
probation department personnel file.
Incident
reports involving juvenile misconduct and tapes of 9-1-1 call are excepted from
disclosure requirements of Public Information Act [OR2001-1347] (01-4-13).
On April 4, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in
a Public Information Act opinion that incident reports that identify juvenile
suspects are excepted from disclosure under the Act and that the tape of a
9-1-1 call is excepted from disclosure because disclosure would impeded an
ongoing investigation.
Common
law privacy, pre-1996 juvenile information, motor vehicle information, and
social security information exceptions to disclosure requirements of Public
Information Act explained [OR2001-1190] (01-4-12).
On March 27, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that certain information requested is
excepted from disclosure by the common law privacy rule, the pre-1996 juvenile
information rule, the motor vehicle information rule and may be excepted under
the post-1990 social security information rule.
Law
enforcement incident report identifying a juvenile as a witness or complainant
is not confidential under juvenile law [OR2001-1088] (01-4-11).
On March 20, 2001, the Attorney General ruled
in a Public Information Act opinion that a police incident report that names
an adult suspect but also names a juvenile witness and complainant is not
confidential under the juvenile records provision.
Parents
of a juvenile are not entitled under Public Information Act to disclosure of a
law enforcement incident report regarding their own child [OR2001-0804]
(01-4-10).
On March 2, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in
a Public Information Act opinion that the confidentiality restrictions of
juvenile law enforcement records apply even to a request to see a record made
by the parents of the juvenile who is named in the record.
Police
offense report retains juvenile confidential status even after the juvenile is
certified to criminal court and convicted as an adult [OR2001-0779] (01-4-09).
On March 1, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in
a Public Information Act request that an incident or offense report concerning
a juvenile offense retains its non-public status even after the juvenile is
certified to criminal court and convicted as an adult.
Juvenile
probation department records come within judiciary exception to Public
Information Act; juvenile's parents not entitled to law enforcement juvenile
information about child [OR2001-0528] (01-4-08).
On February 12, 2001, the Attorney General
ruled in a Public Information Act opinion that all filed maintained by a
juvenile probation department are excepted from required disclosure by the
judiciary exception to the Act. The AG also ruled that a juvenile and his or
her parents have no special rights to law enforcement information concerning
the juvenile.
Police
file of internal affairs investigation into arrest of a juvenile is not required
to be disclosed under the Public Information Act [OR2001-0354] (01-4-07)
On
January 30, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in Public Information Act opinion
that police department records of an internal affairs investigation into the
arrest of a juvenile are not required to be disclosed under the Act. However,
information in a civil service file concerning the same investigation must be
disclosed.
A
law enforcement incident report involving conduct by a 17 year old is subject to
disclosure under the adult, not juvenile, provisions of the Public Information
Act [OR2001-0197] (01-4-06).
On
January 18, 2001, the Attorney General stated in an Public Information Act
opinion that a police incident report involving a 17 year old is subject to
disclosure under adult rules, which means that basic "front page"
information must be disclosed.
Incident
reports of minor traffic accidents involving juveniles are not excepted from
disclosure under the Public Information Act [OR2001-0160] (01-4-05).
On
January 16, 2001, the Attorney General ruled in a Public Information Act
request that police incident reports of minor traffic accidents involving
juveniles are not exempt from disclosure by the juvenile records exception to
the Public Information Act.
In
criminal trial, not error to preclude defense from cross-examining child
complainant about pending juvenile case [Carrillo v. State] (01-4-04).
On
August 21, 2001, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that in a criminal trial
for sexual assault of a child it was not error for the trial judge to preclude
defense counsel from cross-examining the child about an unrelated juvenile
case currently pending against her.
No
error in commitment to TYC as modification despite testimony as to desirability
of other placement alternatives [In re B.N.] (01-4-03).
On
August 30, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals held there was no abuse of
discretion in commitment to TYC as a modified disposition despite testimony
from the treatment providers that an alternative placement would be
preferable.
Evidence
factually sufficient to support adjudication for indecency with a child and
aggravated sexual assault [In re J.M.M.] (01-4-02).
On August 30, 2001, the
Austin Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually sufficient to
support adjudications for indecency with a child and aggravated sexual
assault.
Indecency
with a child adjudication reversed for erroneous admission of hearsay as outcry
testimony [In re Z.L.B.] (01-4-01).
On August 29, 2001, the Dallas
Court of Appeals reversed an adjudication of delinquency for indecency with a
child because testimony was admitted as outcry testimony even though there was
proof that the outcry witness was not the first person to whom the victim had
reported the incident.
Information
in F.B.I. National Crime Information Center database is not subject to
disclosure under the Texas Open Records Act [OR2001-1859] (01-3-36).
On May 7, 2001, the Attorney
General rules in an open records decision that information in the NCIC may not
be disclosed under the Texas Open Records Act. The AG also ruled that driver's
license information may not be disclosed and that some social security
information may not be disclosed.
Law
enforcement record relating to investigation of child abuse or neglect not
subject to disclosure under open records act [OR2001-1735] (01-3-35).
On April 27, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled in an open records opinion that a law enforcement record that
deals with the death of a child under circumstances that might have
constituted abuse or neglect is exempt from disclosure under the open records
act by virtue of a confidentiality provision in Title 5 of the Family Code.
Criminal
history records not subject to disclosure under common law privacy right and
runaway children reports not subject to disclosure under Section 58.007
[OR2001-1704] (01-3-34).
On April 26, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled in an open records opinion that criminal history information in
the possession of a law enforcement agency is not subject to disclosure
because of the common law right of privacy and that reports of runaway
children are not subject to disclosure under Section 58.007 of the Family
Code.
Juvenile
incident reports between 1/1/1996 and 9/1/1997 must be disclosed if statute of
limitations has run [OR2001-1644] (01-3-33).
On April 24, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled in an open records opinion that a law enforcement report
concerning a juvenile for an incident that occurred on or after January 1,
1996 but before September 1, 1997 is not confidential under juvenile law. If
the statute of limitations for the offense being investigated has run, as in
these cases, then the record is not protected from disclosure by the law
enforcement privilege and must be released.
Tape
recording of school board executive session must under FERPA be disclosed to
parent of children being discussed [OR2001-1581] (01-3-32).
On April 20, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled in an open records decision that although Texas law makes tapes
of school board executive sessions confidential, federal law requires that the
portion of the tape in which a requestor's children are being discussed must
be disclosed.
Public
housing authority not entitled to a juvenile incident report under the Open
Records Act [OR2001-1563] (01-3-31).
On April 19, 2001, the Attorney
General opined that a public housing authority is not entitled to receive
under the Open Records Act a law enforcement incident report involving a
juvenile. The report is made not subject to disclosure by Section 58.007 of
the Family Code.
Identity
of victim of aggravated sexual assault who was named in an offense report is
excepted from open records disclosure by common law privacy principles
[OR2001-1430] (01-3-30).
On April 10, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled that the identify of a victim of an aggravated sexual assault
who was named in an offense report is excepted from disclosure under the open
records act by principles of common law privacy.
Juvenile
offense report sent to Crime Victims' Compensation Program is not a public
record [ORD2001-1373] (01-3-29)
On April 5, 2001, the Attorney
General ruled that an offense report in which the subject is a juvenile that
was sent by a police department to the Crime Victims' Compensation Program of
the Attorney General's Office remains confidential under Family Code Section
58.007.
Court
of Appeals holds that three adjudications are required before misdemeanor
probation can be revoked [In re A.N.] (01-3-28).
On August 16, 2001, the Fort Worth
Court of Appeals held that to revoke misdemeanor probation it is necessary
that the adjudication for which probation was given must be preceded by at
least two misdemeanor or felony adjudications. It, therefore, agrees with the
opinion of the Beaumont Court of Appeals in Q.D.M., Juvenile Law Newsletter
01-3-20.
Revocation
of probation for failure to attend school and for school rules violations
affirmed [In re T.R.B.] (01-3-27).
On August 16, 2001, the Texarkana
Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not err in revoking
probation for failure to attend school and for school rules violations.
Outcry
statement properly admitted despite inconsistencies as to circumstances of its
making; four-year-old competent to testify [In re A.R.S.] (01-3-26).
On August 16, 2001, the Houston
Fourteenth District Court of Appeals upheld the admissibility of an outcry
statement by a four-year-old child despite inconsistencies as to whether it
was the result of questioning by the outcry witness; the Court of Appeals
upheld the juvenile court's determination that the four-year-old complaining
witness was competent to testify.
Statement
was involuntary because the judge giving the magistrate's warnings gave
incorrect punishment range for offense [Diaz v. State] (01-3-25).
On August 8, 2001, the San Antonio
Court of Appeals held that a criminal conviction for aggravated robbery must
be reversed because the judge who warned the juvenile told him the offense
carries a possible one year term while it really is punishable by life or 99
years. The resulting confession should not have been admitted into evidence.
Juvenile
certification records were properly filed in criminal court and made part of the
appellate record [Rushing v. State] (01-3-24).
On August 1, 2001, the Waco Court
of Appeals denied a motion for rehearing in a case in which the claim was made
that juvenile certification records could not be considered by the Court of
Appeals in an appeal from a criminal conviction because they were from a
different case than the case being appealed. The records were properly
transferred to and made a part of the criminal trial record, which permits
their consideration as part of the appellate record in an appeal from that
trial.
On August 26, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that a notice of appeal filed more than 30 days
after the disposition order was signed in an indecency with a child case was
untimely and required that the appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
On the merits of a consolidated appeal of an aggravated sexual assault
adjudication, the Court of Appeals abated the appeal and remanded the case to
the juvenile court for it to enter the findings required for disposition and
for removal from home.
On July 26, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
said that a juvenile cannot in an appeal from a revocation probation that he
was never served with a summons in the proceedings leading to his
adjudication. Such an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the original
disposition.
On July 25, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that a transfer hearing that began more than 30 days before the
juvenile’s 18th birthday was timely even though the hearing was not
concluded before the 30 day period.
On July 11, 2001, the Waco Court of Appeals
held that a juvenile’s oral statements concerning a capital murder made to a
juvenile probation officer while in detention are admissible in a criminal
trial because the officer did not interrogate the juvenile.
On July 11, 2001, the Waco Court of Appeals
held that article 4.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring a timely
trial objection to present a claim to an appellate court that the defendant
was not or could not be waived from juvenile court is unconsititutional in
violation of the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution.
However, since a record supplementation showed that the case was transferred,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
On July 18, 2001, the Amarillo Court of Appeals
held that because the juvenile court corrected the term of probation it had
set within 30 days of the original action, it had plenary power under the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to do so.
On July 18, 2001, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that failure to trial counsel to object to the admission before
the jury of evidence of a defendant’s juvenile arrests did not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel because of lack of proof of prejudice from
the admission of the evidence.
On July 12, 2001, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals abated a juvenile appeal to permit the juvenile to prove that
he is indigent and should therefore be excused from advance payment of costs
of appeal.
On July 12, 2001, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals dismissed a juvenile’s appeal because at the juvenile
court’s hearing on abatement to determine why no brief had been filed, the
juvenile, his attorney and parent wished the appeal to be dismissed.
On June 29, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
found there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict for the
offense of indecency with a child despite the fact that the juvenile court
judge set aside the verdict of aggravated sexual assault of a child. There was
evidence to support a finding of indecent touching but the judge could have
entertained a reasonable doubt as to the penetration element of the other
charge.
On June 27, 2001, the Court of Criminal Appeals
held that a delay of 50 minutes to secure a murder scene, during which time
the juvenile was placed in a patrol unit, was not unnecessary so the
juvenile's later written confession should not have been excluded on delay
grounds. It reversed a court of appeals decision that had set aside the murder
conviction.
On June 21, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that since a juvenile is taken into custody, not arrested, the
arrest county venue for criminal expunction proceedings is the county in which
the juvenile court certified the child to criminal court, not the county in
which the juvenile was initially taken into custody.
On June 21, 2001, the El Paso Court of Appeals
upheld an adjudication for criminal trespass in an apartment that was vacant.
Whether a space is a habitation as defined in the criminal trespass law is a
question of fact under all the circumstances.
On June 20, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
upheld an adjudication for aggravated sexual assault over a challenge for
factual and legal sufficiency. It also held that a motion for new trial is not
required to make a factual sufficiency claim about an adjudication in a
nonjury trial.
Court of Appeals requires three adjudications for
commitment to TYC on misdemeanor probation revocation [In re Q.D.M.] (01-3-09).
On June 14, 2001, the Beaumont Court of Appeals
held that the 1999 amendments to Section 54.05 requires that there be three
separate adjudications to enable misdemeanor probation to be revoked and the
child committed to TYC. It refuses to recognize that a probation violation can
substitute for the third adjudication.
On June 13, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that there was no improper evidence of drug dealing in
respondent's adjudication hearing for drug possession.
On June 7, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that a conditional threat of death was sufficient to prove the
offense of terroristic threat. There is a dissenting opinion.
On June 6, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile respondent certified to criminal court for an
offense committed before January 1, 1996 cannot wait until after criminal
conviction to appeal non-jurisdictional defects in the certification
proceedings.
On June 6, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals affirmed a disposition after remanding the case to the juvenile court
for a specific statement of reasons for the disposition removing the
respondent from his home. The Court of Appeals then approved the juvenile
court's statement that the serious nature of the offense and the age
differential between the respondent and the victim justified removal.
On May 31, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that questioning by an assistant principal about reports of a handgun on
campus was not custodial interrogation and did not require rights warnings or
other legal formalities.
On May 31, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court did not err in revoking probation and
that the removal from home findings required by Section 54.04 do not apply in
modification proceedings under Section 54.05.
On May 30, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
reviewed the point made in the respondent's brief filed pro se following an
Anders claim by his appellate lawyer that the juvenile court erred in finding
probable cause in a discretionary transfer hearing that he committed
aggravated robbery. There was sufficient evidence that he committed the
offense under the law of parties.
On May 30, 2001, the Amarillo Court of Appeals
held that the inability of the court reporter to transcribe testimony from
audio tapes of the modification hearing requires that the revocation of
probation be reversed and the case remanded for a new modification hearing.
On May 21, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
refused to address the claim that admission of a minor in possession
adjudication at the penalty phase of a criminal case was erroneous because
that offense does not carry jail time was not preserved because there was not
proper objection at trial.
On May 10, 2001, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that a notice of appeal mailed by certified mail on the last day for
giving timely notice of appeal was timely given under the so-called mailbox
rule.
On May 9, 2001, the Tyler Court of Appeals
reversed a conviction for capital murder following certification from juvenile
court because of mistakes in obtaining the confession. The delay of over 4
hours in notifying the juvenile’s mother that he was in custody was too
long. In addition, the tape recorded administration of juvenile warnings by
the magistrate showed that the juvenile did not understand his rights and did
not therefore voluntarily waive them.
On May 8, 2001, the Amarillo Court of Appeals
abated an appeal and remanded the proceedings to the juvenile court for it to
determine whether an accurate record of a modification hearing can be made
from a defective electronic recording of the hearing. If not, then the
juvenile receives a new trial.
On May 2, 2001, the Waco Court of Appeals held
that notice given orally by the juvenile court judge in court when continuing
a hearing on a motion to transfer to TDCJ complied with the requirements of
notice to the juvenile imposed by Family Code Section 54.11.
On May 3, 2001, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court erred in a determinate sentence
disposition hearing in failing to instruct the jury under Article 37.07 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that
the respondent committed extraneous offenses in order to take them into
account.
On March 15, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that an admonition that the proceedings could
create a lifetime record was not in compliance with law, but that the
deficiency was harmless error.
On April 24, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court was empowered to order restitution for
the decrease in value of an automobile stolen when the juvenile was
adjudicated merely of unauthorized use. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the
unauthorized use was the motivation for the alteration in the vehicle that
diminished its value.
On April 25, 2001, the Amarillo Court of
Appeals upheld the sufficiency of the evidence to support a modification of
disposition and held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
committing the child to the TYC.
On April 23, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that it was error to admit the defendant’s juvenile record into
evidence at the penalty phase of his criminal trial for aggravated robberies.
However, in view of the circumstances of the offenses, the error was harmless
in its effect on the punishments imposed.
On April 18, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to prove the unlicensed driver
of his father’s car was in possession of cocaine found in plain view in the
pocket compartment in the driver’s side door.
On April 12, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that the evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that were
required by law to authorize removal from the child from home and commitment
to the TYC.
On April 11, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court loses jurisdiction over probation
revocation proceedings when the probationer becomes 18 years of age.
On April 11, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a revocation of probation without a written petition or
motion was authorized under Section 54.05 on the court's own oral notice to
the parties; the Court of Appeals abated the appeal and remanded the case for
a written statement of reasons.
On April 5, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
upheld the juvenile court’s restitution order against the father of a child
who vandalized a mobile home. The Court of Appeals refused to require proof of
the condition of the home before it was vandalized as would have been required
in a civil lawsuit as a measure of damages.
On April 4, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a police officer telling a juvenile that his written
statement that simply said “I confess” was not detailed enough did not
invalidate a subsequent detailed written confession.
On March 26, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
upheld a modification of disposition and commitment to the TYC for violation
of the rules of a boot camp.
On March 22, 2001, the El Paso Court of Appeals
upheld the adjudication of a juvenile for threatening to kill a teacher
against a claim that the retaliation statute was overbroad and vague.
On March 15, 2001, the Corpus Christi Court of
Appeals upheld an award of $2000 in restitution for vehicle damage from an
accident when the respondent was adjudicated for failure to stop and give
information. The restitution award was logically related to the accident
element of the offense, so was authorized.
On March 15, 2001, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals, in a case arising before the effective date of article 4.18
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upheld the criminal trial court’s
determination in a motion for new trial hearing that the appellant was an
adult at the time of the offense.
On March 14, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that in court identification of the respondent in a burglary case
was admissible despite the witness having identified the respondent from a one
photo display because the witness had even earlier identified the respondent
based on a chance encounter.
On March 14, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals affirmed a juvenile court transfer order to TDCJ under the determinate
sentence act. It did so on the advice of defense counsel that the appeal was
frivolous.
On March 8, 2001, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that the defense attorney in a sexual assault on a child trial opened the
door to admission of a sexual assault interview videotape but that the
juvenile court erred in admitting the tape over defense objection that it had
not found no unfair prejudice under Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence.
However, the error, in light of the other evidence and the arguments in the
case, was harmless.
On March 8, 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that an assistant principal of a high school can be named the owner for a
criminal trespass case. The Court of Appeals also held that an error in
spelling the assistant principal’s name did not give rise to a fatal
variance at trial.
On February 21, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals reinstated an appeal it had earlier dismissed because the appellant
had attached a copy of his birth certificate to the original notice of appeal.
Because that certificate showed he was a juvenile at the time of the offense,
the notice of appeal to which it was attached implied that the appeal was
being taken for jurisdictional defect and was therefore a valid notice of
appeal.
On January 31, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a visiting judge presiding over a discretionary transfer
hearing should have recused himself as demanded by the juvenile respondent
under his right as provided in the Government Code.
On February 22, 2001, the Houston First
District Court of Appeals held that defense counsel was not ineffective in her
representation of the respondent in an aggravated sexual assault trial.
On February 22, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that a notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after disposition
does not perfect an appeal.
On February 21, 2001, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile felony adjudication and commitment to TYC were
properly used in a criminal trial to enhance punishment from a second to a
first degree felony.
On February 15, 2001, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that questioning of appellant, while a
juvenile, was custodial and oral statements made were therefore inadmissible.
However, their admission was harmless error because of other statements that
were made by appellant.
On February 14, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus to require a juvenile court
judge to rule on an application for writ of habeas corpus filed under article
11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals denied mandamus
on the ground that habeas proceedings in juvenile cases are governed by the
Texas Constitution, not by article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On February 7, 2001, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juveniles right against compelled self-incrimination was
not violated by admissions he made to the juvenile court judge at the
modification of disposition hearing.
On February 7, 2001, the Dallas Court of
Appeals upheld the criminal court’s denial of a motion for new trial on a
claim that a State’s witness testified under an undisclosed deal with the
State in an unrelated juvenile prosecution. The Court of Appeals held that
there was insufficient evidence of the deal to require a new trial.
On January 22, 2001, the Texas Attorney General
opined that the Texas Education Agency may not release information that
identifies students to the Legislative Council under federal law [FERPA]
despite a state statute making the employees of the Legislative Council school
officials.
On January 25, 2001, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile’s murder confession was illegally admitted into
evidence in his criminal trial because police failed to notify his parents of
his arrest as required by the Family Code.
On January 4, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that an appeal from a juvenile case is from the county where the
case was tried and not from the county to which probation was transferred
under Section 51.07(b)
On January 4, 2001, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals joined other courts of appeal to apply the criminal standard of
evidence sufficiency to a juvenile appeal. It also said that notice of intent
to introduce outcry evidence given to the juvenile's family was sufficient
because the juvenile was unrepresented at that time.
On January 4, 2001, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that under Section 54.042 of the Family Code the juvenile court cannot
suspend a driver's license to age 19 for the offense of possession of
marijuana.
|
