Delay v. State
465 S.W.3d 232
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- In 2002, the appellant was the Republican Majority Whip and helped form ARMPAC with TRMPAC later created to influence Texas House elections.
- TRMPAC raised over $350,000 in corporate contributions and maintained separate soft-money and hard-money accounts for spending and contributions.
- TRMPAC and RNSEC allegedly agreed to a one-for-one swap: TRMPAC would donate soft money to RNSEC, which would in turn donate hard money to Texas candidates.
- RNSEC deposited TRMPAC’s $190,000 into RNSEC, and RNSEC then issued $190,000 in hard-money contributions to seven Texas House candidates.
- The State indicted the appellant for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, tying the proceeds to alleged violations of the Texas Election Code Subchapter D.
- The Austin Court of Appeals acquitted both counts, and the State sought discretionary review; the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corporate political contributions can be proceeds of criminal activity | State contends proceeds arose from unlawful corporate contributions under Election Code | Colyandro argues no felony proceeds were generated by the described transactions | No; insufficient to prove proceeds under either theory |
| Whether the TRMPAC-RNSEC agreement tainted proceeds | State asserts the agreement itself violated Election Code, creating proceeds of crime | Colyandro contends agreement did not convert lawful transfers into criminal proceeds | No; agreement did not render proceeds tainted |
| Whether the corporate-contribution theory requires mental state beyond conduct | State argues knowledge of illegality is not required or that conduct plus intent suffices | Colyandro argues knowledge of illegality is necessary for criminal liability | Knowledge of the illegality to the extent alleged was not proven; convictions affirmatively fail |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLay v. State, 410 S.W.3d 902 (Tex.App.-Austin 2013) (sufficiency standards and election-code interpretation guidance)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (knowingly modifying conduct vs. attendant circumstances in Election Code context)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (mens rea required for conduct-element-based offenses)
- Farrington v. State, 489 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (conspiracy to commit a felony does not require pleading the intended offense with precision)