Chad William Murray v. State, 07-13-00356-CR

Background

Chad William Murray was convicted of DWI; this court previously reversed and acquitted him, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that acquittal and remanded for consideration of other properly raised claims.
The encounters occurred ~1:00 a.m.; officer on patrol saw Murray asleep in a running car parked partially on the shoulder near a closed fireworks stand (site of a prior burglary known to officer).
Officer parked behind Murray’s car (no record of emergency lights), knocked and beat on the window and yelled to awaken him; Murray opened the window after a few minutes and the officer detected signs of intoxication.
Trial court denied Murray’s motion to suppress; Murray argued the initial approach was an unlawful detention rather than a consensual encounter.
Murray also claimed the State failed to disclose an expert witness under art. 39.14 and that the court should have given an art. 38.23 jury instruction on illegally obtained evidence.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the officer’s initial approach was a voluntary encounter, rejected the nondisclosure and expert arguments (waiver/harmless error/no continuance), and found no entitlement to a 38.23 instruction or preserved complaint about the suppression ruling’s reasoning.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s approach and attempts to awaken driver constituted a seizure or a voluntary encounter	Murray: knocking/forcing attention for minutes and officer testimony that Murray was not free to leave made the encounter an unlawful detention	State: officer’s conduct was the kind of approach any citizen could make; no authoritative commands or display of coercive official authority; facts mirror consensual encounters	Held: Voluntary encounter. Trial court properly denied suppression; subsequent detention occurred only after reasonable suspicion arose
Whether State violated art. 39.14 by failing to disclose an expert witness	Murray: State elicited expert testimony in violation of a court order and art. 39.14	State: (implicitly) either disclosed or error cured by Murray’s failure to identify expert, preserve complaint, or seek continuance	Held: Issue waived/forfeited—appellant inadequately briefed; no showing of surprise or motion for continuance, so no reversible error
Whether trial court erred by refusing art. 38.23 jury instruction on illegally obtained evidence	Murray: detention may have been an improper welfare check/curiosity stop, raising fact issue for 38.23 instruction	State: encounter was consensual so no illegality; Murray conceded he was not entitled to 38.23 if court found encounter voluntary	Held: No error. Murray admitted he wouldn’t be entitled to 38.23 if encounter was voluntary; complaint about lack of stated reasons for suppression not preserved
Whether appellate review was hindered by trial court’s failure to state reasons for denying suppression	Murray: absence of written or stated reasons deprived defense of strategic development and deprived appellate review	State: (implicitly) suppression ruling and record provided sufficient basis; any claim not timely preserved	Held: Not preserved for review; Murray had argued the encounter issue at suppression, and no new facts shown that were unavailable below

Key Cases Cited

Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for evaluating consensual encounters vs. seizures)
State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (police may approach citizens and knock; seizure requires objective indicia of coercion)
Merideth v. State, 603 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (approach to parked vehicle initiating encounter)
Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (failure to obtain continuance waives claim of surprise from undisclosed witness)
Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (inadequately briefed issues are waived)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (preservation rule for appellate complaints under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1)