Diaz, Daniel
PD-0035-15
| Tex. App. | Feb 13, 2015Background
- Daniel Diaz, a Texas Parks and Wildlife game warden, was indicted for official oppression for detaining James McCormick on Nov. 13, 2011; a jury convicted Diaz and sentenced him to one year in county jail.
- Incident facts: Diaz activated emergency lights behind McCormick, who called 911, continued driving about a mile, then stopped; Diaz handcuffed McCormick and later released him after Liberty police arrived.
- Key evidentiary points: dispute over whether McCormick was speeding or had headlights off, but undisputed that McCormick was on the phone with 911 while Diaz followed and that McCormick did not immediately pull over to the curb when first approached.
- Prosecution introduced testimony of multiple prior encounters between Diaz and McCormick (and other witnesses) to show motive/knowledge; some of that evidence was admitted over Diaz’s motion in limine.
- Diaz appealed, arguing (1) evidence was insufficient because probable cause/reasonable suspicion existed for the stop, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve objections to extraneous-act testimony, and (3) admission of extraneous acts was prejudicial and would chill policing. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diaz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove "unlawful" detention under Penal Code §39.03(a)(1) | The stop was lawful because probable cause/reasonable suspicion existed (speeding, lights off, failure to yield to emergency vehicle); therefore detention was not "unlawful" and conviction cannot stand | Jury could disbelieve Diaz’s explanations; considering all evidence in favor of verdict, a rational juror could find Diaz knowingly subjected McCormick to an unlawful detention | Affirmed: evidence was legally sufficient; appellate court deferred to jury credibility findings and reasonable inferences (Jackson/Brooks standard) |
| Admission of prior encounters/extraneous-act evidence | Prior encounters were unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible propensity evidence under rules 401/403/404(b); should have been excluded or limited | Evidence was relevant to motive, intent, knowledge, and the parties’ conduct; trial court did not abuse discretion and punishment-phase testimony was admissible for sentencing | Affirmed: trial court acted within reasonable discretion; many complaints not preserved on appeal; extraneous acts were relevant to non-propensity issues |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to extraneous-act testimony and failing to preserve limiting instructions | Trial counsel filed a motion in limine but then failed to object during trial as each extraneous-act testimony was presented, so counsel’s performance was deficient and undermined confidence in the verdict | Record is undeveloped on counsel’s trial strategy; appellate review affords deference and defendant must show the trial judge would have erred in overruling objections; cannot infer deficiency on direct appeal | Affirmed: claim not proven on the record; presumption counsel acted reasonably and direct appeal record insufficient to establish Strickland relief |
| Chilling effect on policing | Upholding conviction will chill lawful traffic stops | Official oppression statute targets unlawful exercise of official power; decision does not alter reasonable-suspicion standard for lawful policing | Affirmed: court rejected chilling-effect argument; ruling does not change reasonable-suspicion law |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying Jackson standard in Texas and deferring to jury credibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hypothetically correct jury charge framing for sufficiency review)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App.) (scope of jury charge and elements)
- Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probable cause to detain for traffic violation)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption that jury resolved conflicting inferences in favor of prosecution)
- Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussion of Strickland and appellate review of ineffectiveness claims)