Cary, David Frederick
PD-0445-15
| Tex. | Oct 5, 2015Background
- Civil proceedings and criminal charges arose from alleged bribery relating to campaign financing in a judge-election context.
- Cary and spouse Stacy Cary funded a campaign through Stephen Spencer to support Suzanne Wooten’s run for the 380th District Court.
- Wooten became a candidate and later judge, but immediately recused from Cary’s child-custody case.
- State’s theory labeled payments to Spencer as bribery for Wooten’s candidacy, continued candidacy, and favorable rulings.
- Court of Appeals reversed Cary’s convictions, concluding evidence failed to prove bribery beyond a reasonable doubt by anything other than political contributions.
- Lower court proceedings and the Superseding Indictment tied bribery to money transfers, but the defense argued such contributions were political contributions under Texas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state proved bribery by something other than political contributions beyond a reasonable doubt | Cary | State | Yes: state failed; bribery required non-contribution conduct beyond a political contribution |
| Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain all bribery convictions | Cary | State | No: insufficient evidence for all three bribery-based actions |
| Whether the EOCA and money laundering convictions can stand without sufficient bribery proof | Cary | State | No: EOCA and money laundering reversed due to insufficient bribery proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Jackson standard applied to sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (limits on inferences and speculation in evidence)
- Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (invoked in discussing due process standards)
- Martinez v. State, 696 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985) (offense requires intent for consideration in official acts)
- Mustard v. State, 711 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (necessity of intended agreement in bribery cases)
- McCallum v. State, 686 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (bribery involves consideration for official action)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (Caperton relevance to due process in campaign-finance context)
- Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (invited error doctrine distinctions)
- Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (invited error and preservation principles)