Delay, Thomas Dale
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1462
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- DeLay was convicted of money laundering (first-degree felony in 2002) and conspiracy to commit money laundering (second-degree at the time).
- Trial court sentenced five years for the object offense with ten-year supervised release and three years for the conspiracy offense.
- Austin Court of Appeals reversed both convictions for legally insufficient evidence; State sought discretionary review.
- State argued TRMPAC exchanged corporate soft money for RNSEC hard money to taint funds used for Texas campaigns; rcited money-swap as proceeds of crime.
- Court analyzed two theories of criminal proceeds under the Election Code: (a) agreement theory—prearranged transfer taint from TRMPAC to RNSEC; (b) corporation theory—taint from initial illegal corporate contributions themselves.
- Court held, as a matter of law, the evidence failed to prove proceeds of a felony under either theory because the appellant lacked requisite mens rea and the alleged taint did not transfer to the Texas candidates
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RNSEC/TRMPAC money swap produced criminal proceeds | State contends the swap tainted funds as proceeds of crime | DeLay argues no Election Code violation occurred and thus no tainted proceeds | Insufficient evidence under both theories to prove proceeds |
| Whether the corporate contributions/ Subchapter D violations could satisfy money-laundering proceeds | State asserts corporate contributions violated Election Code, producing proceeds | DeLay argues lack of awareness of illegality by corporate contributors | No viable taint under either theory; mens rea not shown |
| Whether the TRMPAC-to-RNSEC transfer itself could be the laundering transaction | State identifies the RNSEC hard-to-soft money transfer as the laundering event | DeLay contends prior agreement cannot alter the character of funds | Transaction failed to establish proceeds of a criminal offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses statutory construction in sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (determines interpretation of Election Code provisions)
- Shipp v. State, 331 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (plurality on catch-all in forgery/statutory interpretation)
- Wright v. State, 201 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (construing statutory definitions for sufficiency)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (discusses culpability and conduct elements in ambiguous statutes)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. (Supreme Court) 2000) (knowingly modification vs. conduct element in Election Code)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. (Supreme Court) 1985) (discusses knowledge/knowingly modifier in criminal statutes)