in the Matter of G. G.
01-16-00754-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Student G.G. at Cypress Ridge High was found drowsy and suspected of drug use after a nurse’s impairment assessment.
- G.G. left an administrator’s office, was stopped after an altercation during which he head-butted an assistant principal, and was restrained by Officer T. Brooks.
- Officer Brooks handcuffed G.G., escorted him to the principal’s office, called the district attorney (who accepted assault charges), and told G.G. he was under arrest for assault on a public servant.
- Brooks and his partner began to escort G.G. to a patrol car with an arm on each of G.G.’s arms; within about a minute G.G., still handcuffed, broke free, ran through the cafeteria and out to the parking lot, and was later recaptured.
- The juvenile court adjudicated G.G. delinquent for escape; G.G. appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he was "under arrest" when he escaped, and (2) the trial court erred by refusing his proposed Medford-based jury definition of “arrest.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Whether evidence proved G.G. escaped while under arrest | G.G.: He wasn’t told he was under arrest and didn’t know he was under arrest when he ran; evidence insufficient | State: Handcuffing, restraint, escort, DA acceptance, and officers’ control show a reasonable person would understand arrest | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to show arrest and escape |
| Jury charge: Whether trial court erred in refusing Medford arrest definition | G.G.: Requested Medford objective reasonable-person definition; charge omitted that standard | State: Article 15.22 definition adequate; no harmful error given facts and jury note | Any error harmless — charge did not prejudice G.G.; verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App.) (adopted objective reasonable-person test for "arrest" in escape cases)
- Castillo v. State, 404 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (escape while under arrest can be proven without explicit verbal arrest if restraint equates to formal arrest)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless vs. reversible jury-charge error analysis)