Black, Terrance Deering
PD-1371-15
Tex. App.Dec 23, 2015Background
- Terrance Deering Black was convicted of capital murder for the 2011 abduction and killing of Susan Loper; jury found him guilty and he received life imprisonment.
- Police executed two search warrants of Black’s Frisco residence shortly after Loper disappeared; the defense moved to suppress evidence seized under those warrants. The trial court conducted an oral colloquy and denied suppression.
- Defense sought to admit alternative-perpetrator evidence implicating Jayson Hayes (Loper’s boyfriend): fingerprint/DNA links to scene/car and testimony about Hayes’ prior violence toward ex-wives. The trial court largely excluded prior-act evidence about Hayes.
- On appeal the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) upholding the magistrate’s probable-cause finding for the warrants under a deferential warrant-review standard, (2) rejecting the Franks challenge to the second affidavit, and (3) finding no abuse of discretion in excluding Hayes’ prior-acts evidence for lack of a sufficient nexus and Rule 403 concerns.
- Petitioner sought discretionary review, arguing (a) the court of appeals applied the wrong standard by ignoring the trial court’s oral findings and (b) the Eighth Court’s nexus rule for alternate-perpetrator evidence conflicts with Wiley and other authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Black) Argument | State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for denial of motion to suppress search-warrant evidence | Trial court made oral findings of fact and conclusions of law; court of appeals should review application of law to those facts de novo per Guzman | Because search-warrant review is limited to the four corners of the affidavit, a highly deferential magistrate-review standard applies | Court of Appeals applied deferential warrant-review standard and affirmed that the magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause |
| Validity of second warrant (Franks challenge) | Portions of the affidavit misstated or overstated the printed documents’ connection to victim; any deliberate/reckless falsehoods should void the warrant | Affiant’s statement that documents were "regarding the victim" was a reasonable inference; no deliberate/reckless falsity shown and remaining facts suffice for probable cause | Trial court’s denial of the Franks claim affirmed — no deliberate falsehood and probable cause remains |
| Admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence about alternate perpetrator (nexus and quantum) | Evidence of Hayes’ prior violence and abusive modus operandi was critical to show motive and make nexus to the charged killing; exclusion violated right to present a defense | Prior-act evidence lacked sufficient nexus to the charged offense; admitting it would cause unfair prejudice and jury confusion under Rule 403 | Court held excluded evidence did not sufficiently connect Hayes to the murder (no nexus); exclusion was within trial court’s discretion |
| Legal standard for alternate-perpetrator nexus | The required nexus is light — "logic, reason, and a scintilla of evidence" (Wiley) and courts should not impose an impossibly high similarity requirement | Courts must exclude mere speculation; some courts look for substantial similarity or meaningful link | Court of Appeals required a more exacting nexus (effectively greater similarity) and affirmed exclusion; petitioner argues this conflicts with Wiley and divergent appellate treatments and seeks clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for reviewing mixed law/fact suppression rulings when trial court makes express findings)
- Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (defendant must show a nexus between alleged alternative perpetrator and the offense; nexus may be minimal but must exist)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (if affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods and omission of them defeats probable cause, warrant must be voided)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishes warrant-review standard: magistrate’s probable-cause finding is reviewed deferentially from the affidavit’s four corners)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (warning against appellate factfinding that invents inferences inconsistent with trial-court findings)