2010 Case Summaries
2010 Summaries 2009 Summaries 2008 Summaries 2007 Summaries
2006 Summaries 2005 Summaries 2004 Summaries 2003 Summaries
2002 Summaries 2001 Summaries 2000 Summaries 1999 Summaries
On Aril 1, 2010, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that constitutional challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings should be raised at trial and at the time the trial court sustained the State's objections to the admission of the proffered evidence.
On February 12, 2010, the Supreme Court found that juvenile's motion for new trial was sufficient to encompass, and preserve, his complaint on appeal that jury's rejection of his affirmative defense of duress had no evidentiary support, warranting reversal.
On March 18, 2010, the Houston Court of Appeals (1 Dist.), held that by not objecting to amount of child support ordered at trial, juvenile’s parent failed to preserve error for appeal, however, the court mentioned that the issue of whether a motion to modify the child-support payments may be filed by the parent was not presented.
On March 10, 2010, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, in a robbery disposition, a trial court is not required to exhaust all possible alternatives before sending a juvenile to TYC.
On March 12, 2010, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that in a Certification and Transfer Hearing, the failure to serve summons on juvenile in a timely manner, deprived the juvenile court of its jurisdiction to transfer this matter to the district court and, therefore, the district court never acquired jurisdiction over appellant.
On February 24, 2010, the El Paso Court of Appeals concluded that the jury could have rationally found beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the offense charged, including care, control, and management of marihuana, and that appellant intentionally or knowingly possessed the contraband.
On February 25, 2010, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that since the substance of respondent’s objection to juvenile’s state jail felony enhancement focused on the lack of prior notice and failed to comport with that asserted on appeal, the matter was not preserved.
On February 26, 2010, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that respondent was the aggressor in assault, negating respondent’s position that he was justified in using force against victim.
On March 5, 2010, the Austin Court of Appeals held that, considering the low level of intrusion on student's limited privacy rights and the evidence about the drug problem at the school, the seizure of student’s backpacks, to be sniffed by drug dogs, effectively addressed the problem of student drug use and served the important governmental interest in protecting the students' safety and health.
On February 18, 2010 the Amarillo Court of Appeals abated juvenile’s appeal and remanded case for appointment of new counsel where old counsel filed Anders brief, and Appellate Court found that potential appellate issues existed.
On February 2, 2010, the Amarillo Court concluded that the Family Code does not require that a respondent give notice of intent to assert the defense of lack of responsibility due to mental illness or mental retardation, and as a result, the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to doctor’s report regarding juvenile’s mental condition.
On February 2, 2010, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that failure to meet the statutory requisites for an outcry statement was not error where witness’s statement was admissible as an excited utterance.
On February 3, 2010, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that hearsay testimony from an outcry witness, which the state failed to properly notify juvenile’s counsel of, was admissible as a hearsay exception where the testimony was offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
On February 3, 2010, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's finding, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found that the elements of aggravated sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
On February 4, 2010, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that while a prosecutor has the discretion to defer prosecution of a juvenile without court approval in certain circumstances, the agreement must comply with Tex.R. Civ. P. 11, to be enforceable.
On January 27, 2010, the Waco Court of Appeals found that, section 61.103 of the Texas Family Code provides that parents have a right of access to their child, however, however, if the parent is denied the right of access, the child may not raise that complaint on appeal.
On January 27, 2010, the Waco Court of Appeals held that trial court did not err in denying juvenile's motion to suppress since juvenile had the burden of proving a causal connection between the alleged violation of section 52.02(b) and his statement and no evidence of a causal connection was presented.
On January 27, 2010, the Waco Court of Appeals held that in a discretionary transfer preceding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent person to believe that the suspect committed the offense of murder as a party acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.
In January 28, 2010, the Houston Court of Appeals (14th Dist.), stated that when a party's argument for admitting evidence could refer to either the Rules of Evidence or the Confrontation Clause, he must specifically articulate that the Confrontation Clause demands admission of the evidence to preserve error on this ground.
In January 6, 2010, the El Paso Court of Appeals reversed a portion of a judgment finding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the juvenile's mother by willful act or omission, contributed to, caused, or encouraged the child's delinquent conduct.
On November 20, 2009, the Austin Court of Appeals held that damage caused by juvenile committing the offense of evading arrest was damage for which the juvenile was criminally responsible.
On October 21, 2009, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court's judgment concluding that art. 28.01, § 1(6), does not mandate that all information considered by a trial judge must be accompanied by affidavit or testimony.