PD-0822-08, Nikolai Ivanov Karenev v. State, a harassment case out of Denton County.
The State's opening argument. (Jeff Van Horn, State Prosecuting Attorney)
Appellant's response. William E. Trantham)
The State's rebuttal. (There wasn't any, but I thought I'd be thorough)
Here, Karenev sent threatening and harassing e-mails to his wife during the pendency of their divorce. The State charged Karenev with sending harassing e-mails and the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld Karenev's facial constitutional challenge to the statute. You can read the underlying opinion here.
Judge Cochran seemed hypothetically annoyed with bloggers that criticize the CCA. I sure hope she wasn't talking about me. The State sought to argue that the content of the speech was immaterial so long as the actor engaged in the speech with the specific intent to violate the law. For his part, the Appellant argued the exact opposite extreme. This statute regulated the content of the speech, the Constitution prohibits such regulation, and Appellant wasn't required to object to the constitutionaly of the statute in the trial court.
I think the State's distinction seems to work when you're talking about virtual child porn because the specific intent is to communicate child porn. Thus, the underlying speech that you are emulating wouldn't be protected. But when you're talking about "harassment" you could be talking about threats which wouldn't be protected speech and or you could be talking about Max Cady-sitting-behind-you-at-the-theater-type behavior that wouldn't violate any laws on its own. I don't know. I'll have to wait to see what they come up with, and more importantly, if Judge Cochran refers to Prince Albert in a can or name checks any bloggers critical of the CCA.]
PD-0758-08, Randy Deshawn Collier v. State, a tampering with physical evidence case out of Taylor County.
Appellant's opening argument. (Britt Lindsey)
The State's response. (Patricia K. Dyer).
Appellant's rebuttal. (Again, just being thorough.)
Collier was charged with tampering with physical evidence for chewing up cocaine while a police officer tried to pull Collier over for a traffic violation. The Court granted review to consider whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to show Collier had chewed and destroye cocaine and whether the evidentiary value of the evidence was destroyed. You can read the published opinion from the Eastland Court of Appeals here.
Originally, the Court was scheduled to hear Belinda Montoya v. State, but both sides waived oral argument in that case.
