Black v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 357
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Black convicted of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (4–200 g).
- Pretrial motion to suppress argued stop/arrest lacked valid warrant support due to post-dated affidavits.
- Trial court held a pretrial suppression hearing; denied suppression.
- During trial, State sought to reopen suppression hearing, eliciting Judge Jacobs's testimony outside the jury.
- Appellant objected; court permitted reopening and Judge Jacobs testified.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; discretionary question whether trial court could reopen suppression hearing mid-trial; court relied on Montalvo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to reopen suppression hearing mid-trial | Rachal forbids mid-trial relitigation without consent | Black resisted reopening; no consent | Trial court had discretion to reopen suppression hearing. |
| Admissibility of Judge Jacobs's testimony to support probable cause | Probable cause must come from the warrant’s face or sworn complaint | Judge Jacobs's personal knowledge can supply probable cause under Art. 45.103 | Judge Jacobs's testimony properly considered; valid under Article 45.103. |
| Four-corners rule scope for arrest warrants | Four-corners rule confines probCause to warrant face | Four-corners applies to accompanying affidavit, not the warrant face | Four-corners applies to the supporting affidavit, not the warrant face; can look beyond face. |
| Effect on appellate review of reopening evidence | Rachal controls what is reviewable on appeal | Reopened evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and should be considered | Appellate review allowed to consider reopened evidence in assessing suppression ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (footnote foundation for relitigation when State raises issue at trial)
- Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (consensual relitigation allows exam of trial record for suppression)
- Montalvo v. State, 846 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993) (trial court may reopen suppression during trial to consider new evidence)
- Kosanda v. State, 727 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987) (warrants invalid where supporting complaints were defective; distinguishable by testimony on present record)
- Dunn v. State, 951 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (four-corners related to probable cause; extrinsic information considered for good-faith)
- Cowsert v. State, 207 S.W.3d 347 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (process of reconsidering suppression rulings; articulation of interlocutory appeal limits)