Gregg Carl Baird v. State, 379 S.W.3d 353

Baird was charged with thirteen counts of possession of child pornography and pled guilty to ten, with ninety unadjudicated offenses dismissed and a jury waived for punishment.
Trial court sentenced: count 1 ten years, count 2 five years cumulated, count 3 ten years suspended for community supervision, and ten-year terms on remaining counts served consecutively.
Baird moved to suppress evidence; the motion was denied after a suppression hearing with factual findings favoring the State’s view.
Dawn Killian, hired to care for Baird’s dog, entered his home and bedroom; she accessed his computer, copied songs, then discovered child pornography files.
Killian reported the findings to police; a search warrant led to seizure of devices showing child pornography.
On appeal, Baird challenges (i) the denial of his suppression motion and (ii) admission of punishment evidence involving constitutionally protected conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence	Baird argues Killian committed trespass and breached computer security, making evidence unlawfully obtained.	State contends Killian had effective/apparent consent; suppression improper.	Trial court did not err; suppression denied.
Admission of punishment evidence	Baird asserts protected sexual conduct evidence should be excluded as punishment evidence under due process.	State contends evidence is relevant to sentencing; permissible under Article 37.07, §3(a).	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible for punishment.

Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (guided standard of review for suppression rulings)
Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (fact-finding deference in suppression review)
Best v. State, 118 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in suppression)
Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defer to trial court on historical facts and credibility in suppression rulings)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (credibility/weight of testimony in suppression rulings)
Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for reviewing factual findings on suppression)
Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of review for suppression matters involving credibility)
Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (constitutionality of considering protected conduct at sentencing; relevance test)
Mason v. State, 905 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (admissibility of evidence at sentencing based on relevance)
Woodward v. State, 170 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005) (admissibility of non-criminal act evidence at punishment)
Cox v. State, 931 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (non-criminal act evidence admissibility for punishment relevance)