PD-0587-08,State v. Thomas L. Varkonyi, a criminal solicitation of a child case out of El Paso.
Appellee's opening argument. (John D. Gates)
The State's response. (Tom Darnold)
Appellee's rebuttal.
The CCA granted review on the following issues:
1. The court of appeals erroneously concluded that the granting of the new trial was an abuse of discretion because the petitioner did not list sufficient grounds to support the motion for new trial, alleging only that the motion was brought "in the interest of justice."
2. The court of appeals erroneously concluded that the granting of a new trial was an abuse of discretion because the trial court's in-court, oral recollection of the jury's misconduct and the trial attorneys' ineffectiveness was incompetent evidence.
Here, the trial court granted a new trial based upon his own recollections of conversations he'd had with jurors regarding an audiotape that had been admitted into evidence. Specifically, the trial court had prevented the jurors from translating the tape during deliberations, but heard from jurors after the verdict that one of the jurors had translated the tape (determining it was very damaging to the defense). You can read the underlying opinion here.
PD-1047-08, Ex parte Jason Wayne Hunter, an aggravated sexual assault case out of Titus County.
The State's opening argument. (David Colley)
Appellant's response. (Lori Chism)
The State's rebuttal.
The CCA granted review on the following issue:
The court of appeals erred by broadening the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding in Fierro, to apply to a double jeopardy bar where a juror was dismissed on presumed bias for he benefit of the defendant, the defendant failed to object to the dismissal of a challengeable juror and the defendant refused to consent to trial with eleven jurors thereafter.
The granted issue makes it pretty clear what's going on, but here's a link to the dissent in Ex parte Fierro to compliment the link to the majority opinion above, if you're interested. You can also read the underlying court of appeals opinion in Hunter here.
PD-956-08, Joe Christian Salazar v. State, a burglary of a habitation out of Potter County. [If only it had been a misdemeanor, then we might've gotten to hear from the Potter County Attorney.]
Appellant's opening argument. (John Benett)
The State's response. (John L. Owen)
Appellant's rebuttal.
The CCA granted review on the following issue:
Does a habitation inherently give notice that entry is forbidden?
Clearly, the CCA had decided to let its appellate freak flag fly on this one (as they did with trying to figure out if you can fire at a house while in a house, a la Michael Reed v. State). In this case, the trial court denied a requested lesser-included instruction on criminal trespass because it was not a lesser-included offense of burglary. The indictment does not list any "notice" requirement. Thus, because Hall v. State keys determination of lesser-includeds to the elements listed in the indictment, burglary, as alleged, does not contain a element that criminal trespass requires, if I'm reading the court of appeals spare opinion correctly. You can read that underlying opinion here.
