Cary v. State
507 S.W.3d 750
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Stacy Cary transferred $150,000 to consultant James Spencer in early 2008; Spencer recruited Suzanne Wooten to run for judge against Judge Sandoval. The State alleged the transfers were bribes routed through Spencer to induce Wooten to run, continue campaigning, and issue favorable rulings if elected.
- Stacy was convicted by a jury of six counts of bribery (Tex. Penal Code § 36.02(a)(1),(2)), one count of money laundering, and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity; sentence was probated with 30 days confinement as a probation condition.
- The court of appeals affirmed on a split panel; Stacy sought discretionary review to challenge sufficiency of evidence and an exclusion-of-evidence ruling.
- Key statutory question: whether the political-contribution exception (§ 36.02(d)) excludes the transfers from bribery liability — i.e., whether the transfers qualify as political contributions under Title 15 of the Texas Election Code.
- The Court construed § 36.02(d) to incorporate the definition of "political contribution" in Tex. Elec. Code § 251.001, holding that the exception applies regardless of whether the contribution exceeds statutory limits.
- Applying that construction and Jackson sufficiency review, the Court found the evidence insufficient to negate the political-contribution exception and therefore reversed and rendered acquittals on bribery, money laundering, and organized-crime counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfers were excluded by the political-contribution exception | State: transfers were bribes, not political contributions, because paid to influence official acts | Stacy: transfers were political contributions intended to be used in a campaign and thus excepted from bribery | Court: transfers fall within Election Code definition of political contribution; State failed to prove they were not political contributions; convictions reversed |
| Properness of appellate review of unraised issue (unassigned error) | State: issue not preserved; court of appeals should not decide | Stacy: court of appeals effectively reached the issue; PDR properly presents it | Court: issue was cognizable because court of appeals addressed it; review proper |
| Whether the State met Jackson standard for bribery intent and use of funds | State: circumstantial evidence showed intent to bribe Wooten and that funds would not be used as campaign contributions | Stacy: evidence shows intent funds were for campaign (consulting/campaign expenses) | Court: under correct statutory definition, no rational jury could find State negated political-contribution exception beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for money laundering and organized criminal activity | State: laundering and RICO-type counts supported by bribery predicate and alleged PFS tampering | Stacy: predicates collapse if bribery fails; no evidence of gifts to Wooten personally requiring PFS disclosure | Court: because bribery unproven, laundering failed; no evidence Wooten received reportable personal gifts or loans — organized-activity conviction fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Delay v. State, 465 S.W.3d 232 (appellate construction can resolve sufficiency when statute defines offense reach)
- Sanchez v. State, 209 S.W.3d 117 (courts may reach unassigned error when appellate court addressed it)
- Ex parte Bryant, 448 S.W.3d 29 (arguments are not evidence in sufficiency review)
- Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (invited-error doctrine explained)