Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of September 24, 2018.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
In re Commitment of Bluitt, No. 02-17-00150-CV (Sept. 27, 2018) (op. on reh’g) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Meier and Birdwell, JJ.).
Held: Chapter 841 of the Texas Health & Safety Code guarantees a person whom the State seeks to have civilly committed as a sexually violent predator the right to appear in person at the trial. Because the requirement that the trial take place within 270 days of filing is waivable, we remand the proceeding to the trial court to determine the extent of Bluitt’s waiver or if a continuance should be granted on any other grounds.
Perez v. State, No. 02-17-00226-CR (Sept. 27, 2018) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Meier and Kerr, JJ.).
Held: We join our sister courts in holding that section two of article 38.37, which allows testimony to extraneous-offenses by individuals who are not the complainants and for “any bearing the evidence has on relevant matters,” is constitutional. The trial court correctly applied article 38.37 to allow testimony by Perez’s two sisters, but it abused its discretion by overruling Perez’s rule 403 objection because their testimony was to events that allegedly took place more than 50 years before trial and without any intervening misconduct. In light of the detailed testimony provided by the child complainants—Perez’s grandchildren—to his abuse of them, the trial court’s error was harmless. Finally, the admission of the sex-offender-treatment provider’s testimony to the general characteristics of sex offenders and child victims of sexual abuse was not error because it was sufficiently linked to the facts of the case.
State v. Drury, No. 02-17-00273-CR (Sept. 27, 2018) (Meier, J., joined by Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.).
Held: A tin can that Drury was holding when police discovered him hiding in a closet was immediately associated with him, and no additional justification beyond the lawful arrest was necessary to justify a search of the tin can.