Drummond, Jimmy Earl
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1128
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- In September 2013 Harris County DA’s Civil Rights Division received a complaint alleging Constable’s sergeant Jimmy Earl Drummond used excessive force (official oppression) in several arrests; medical records and dashcam video corroborated injuries.
- Seven days after receiving the complaint — one day before the two-year statute of limitations expired for the Class A misdemeanor — the State presented a probable-cause affidavit to a magistrate who authorized a capias; the same day an assistant DA filed a charging document labeled at the bottom “COMPLAINT.”
- The filing began “In the name and by authority of the State of Texas,” concluded “Against the peace and dignity of the State,” incorporated the probable-cause affidavit, and contained allegations meeting statutory requisites for an information and for a supporting complaint.
- Months later a grand jury returned an indictment (initially without tolling language and later a second indictment with tolling language). Drummond moved to quash, arguing the initial filing was only a complaint and could not toll limitations because a Class A misdemeanor must be initiated by information or indictment.
- The trial court granted the motion to quash; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the initial filing was just a complaint and did not toll the statute. The State sought review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the single document satisfied the statutory requirements for both an information and the supporting complaint, tolled the limitations period, reversed the court of appeals, set aside the quash order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s initial filing tolled the statute of limitations | The State argued the initial filing tolled limitations because Article 12.05 tolls during the pendency of an indictment, information, or complaint and the filed document functioned to toll | Drummond argued the Class A misdemeanor had to be charged by information or indictment and the document was only a complaint, so it could not toll limitations | The Court held the single document met requirements of both an information and a supporting complaint; therefore its filing tolled the statute of limitations |
| Whether a single document may constitutionally and statutorily serve as both an information and the supporting complaint | State: a single document that satisfies statutory requisites can serve as both, tolling limitations | Drummond: complaint and information must be separate documents; a single-document label “COMPLAINT” proves it was only a complaint | The Court held the Code does not prohibit a single document serving as both when it meets the statutory elements and the affiant is distinct from the prosecutor |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (review standard for sufficiency of charging instrument)
- Jernigan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 936 (distinguishing complaints for informations from affidavits for warrants)
- Halbadier v. State, 220 S.W. 85 (definition of credible person for supporting complaint)
- Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (tolling applies when later charging instrument alleges same acts)
- Skinner v. State, 484 S.W.3d 434 (construe filings by substance, not caption)
- Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663 (single document can serve as complaint and information)
- Emerson v. State, 727 S.W.2d 267 (misdemeanor official-misconduct jurisdiction in district courts)