Objections « CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

August 15, 2009

TRIAL OBJECTIONS MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: Criminal trials, drugs, evidence, Objections — johntfloyd @ 2:49 pm

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas Finds Lawyer’s Careful and Repeated Objections did not Preserve Error

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Criminal trials are governed by strict rules of evidence and procedures. It is the duty of a defense attorney to not only know but understand these rules and procedures precisely. We have written several times in the past about the harm caused by a defense attorney’s inadvertent failure to make specific, timely and properly lodged objections during the course of a criminal trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently delivered that same unreasonable message once again and in no uncertain terms.

The case involved Luis Pena who, in 1998, was charged with possession of marijuana seized during a traffic stop. He was put on trial in 2003. His attorney had learned that the evidence in the case had been destroyed in 2000. The attorney also learned through a thorough investigation that all of the records and documents associated with the lab report of the Texas Department of Public Safety concerning the marijuana had been lost. So prior to trial the attorney diligently filed a motion for an independent lab analysis of the seized marijuana and moved to suppress the DPS lab results. These motions were denied by the trial court.

Not to be deterred, Pena’s attorney lodged general evidence-custody objections based on the laws of Texas, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The trial judge denied these objections, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents that require a state criminal defendant to not only show that the lost or destroyed evidence was both material and favorable to his defense but that the state act in bad faith when it lost or destroyed the evidence.

During Pena’s trial, the prosecution called a DPS chemist to testify about the lab test results. Pena’s attorney not only properly objected but requested that he be allowed to question the chemist outside of the jury’s presence to assess his qualifications and to determine the admissibility of the test results. The trial judge granted the attorney’s request, and after both sides had an opportunity to question the chemist about the destruction of the evidence, the judge personally questioned the chemist to determine if DPS had acted in bad faith when it destroyed the evidence. The judge concluded the law enforcement agency had not only acted in bad faith but that the destroyed evidence was not favorable to Pena. (more…)

Comments (0)

February 14, 2009

OBJECTIONS, BOLSTERING, AND APPELLATE REVIEW

Filed under: Child Abuse Crimes Lawyer — Tags: appellate review, bolstering, child abuse, child sex crime, impermissible, Objections, sexual abuse — johntfloyd @ 6:33 pm

Objections to Bolstering Testimony Should Communicate Evidentiary Basis

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Texas Rules of Evidence, Article 103, requires that a timely objection be based on a specific ground in order to preserve for appellate review an alleged trial error concerning the admissibility of evidence.

An en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seventeen years ago held that “… all a party has to do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it. Of course, when it seems from context that a party failed effectively to communicate his desire, then reviewing courts should not hesitate to hold that appellate complaints arising from the event have been lost. But otherwise, they should reach the merits of those complaints without requiring that the parties read some special script to make their wishes known.” See: Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.Crim. App. 1992).

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently reaffirmed the Lankston principle that objections to the admissibility of evidence must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for appellate review. See: Rivas v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 98 (Jan. 28, 2009). The Rivas court rejuvenated the language of Lankston to set the stage for its ultimate ruling, saying:

“Our system of justice is characteristically adversarial. One consequence is that many substantive and procedural features, especially most evidentiary rules, are really optional with the parties. Although we may speak of evidence as inadmissible, it is more precise, if not more correct, to say that the rules make such evidence objectionable. Indeed, this is just another way of calling attention to the fact that no issue concerning the admissibility of evidence ever arises unless one of the parties objects to it.

”It follows that the trial judge’s role in the admission and exclusion of evidence is generally not called into play unless a dispute develops between the parties concerning the proper application of an evidentiary rule. And because, absent any such dispute, our system generally expects him not to interfere with the presentation of evidence, it likewise does not fault him for refusing to interfere when a party fails to make the basis for his objection known. Beyond this, there are no technical considerations or form of words to be used. Straightforward communication in plain English will always suffice.” Id., at LEXIS 1-2. (more…)

Comments (0)

October 26, 2008

HEARSAY EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS

Filed under: federal Appeals Attorney — Tags: Hearsay Evidence, Objections, trial law — johntfloyd @ 2:45 pm

The Critical Need For Timely And Specific Objections During A Criminal Trial

By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There is rarely a time when a defense attorney does not find the need to object during a criminal trial because the prosecution either attempts to introduce inadmissible evidence or engages in some questionable conduct concerning the proffer of evidence.

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a) (1) requires a timely objection to the admission or exclusion of questionable or irrelevant evidence. The objection must be accompanied by a specific reason for the objection. Id. See also: Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) [defendant must make a timely and specific objection each time inadmissible evidence is offered at trial and secure an adverse ruling from the trial court on the objection]; Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1), however, relieves a defense attorney of the need to object each time the inadmissible evidence is offered if he either (1) requests a running objection or (2) objects to the evidence outside the presence of the jury. See, Geuder, 115 S.W.3d at 13.

These rules governing objections apply especially to hearsay evidence. See: Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Tex. R. Evid. 802 provides that inadmissible hearsay admitted at a criminal trial without objection by defense counsel does not lose its probative value because it is hearsay. Id.

This brings us to the tale of two cases involving hearsay evidence. Objection to this evidence was properly handled by one defense attorney but horribly mangled by another. We’ll examine the latter case first.

Francisco Vasquez was tried and convicted in June 2005 for the murder of Eduardo Cantu in 2004. The jury assessed punishment at 99 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See: Vasquez v. State, ___ S.W.3d ____, 2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 2952 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi April 24, 2008). (more…)

Comments (1)