James Lee Skinner v. State, 01-14-00748-CR

Background

Police (Officers McCord and Yencha) used a confidential informant for a controlled buy of methamphetamine at James Skinner’s residence; informant returned with ~1 gram and said Skinner had more.
McCord searched (pat‑down, emptied pockets) the informant before and after the buy, provided undercover money, and drafted an affidavit stating these facts and that the meeting occurred “within the past 48 hours.”
A magistrate issued a search warrant based on McCord’s affidavit; execution produced drugs, cash, and a safe key; Skinner pleaded guilty but reserved right to appeal suppression issues.
Skinner moved to suppress, sought a Franks hearing (alleging deliberate/reckless false statements), and moved to compel disclosure of the informant; the trial court held an in‑camera hearing, denied relief, and adopted the State’s findings.
On appeal the State defends: (1) affidavit supplied sufficiently recent information and showed ongoing drug activity; (2) Skinner waived his Franks claim about the word “checked” because he did not raise it below, and in any event McCord believed her statement; (3) the court properly refused to disclose the informant because his testimony was not necessary and the court found him credible.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit failed to establish timeliness/staleness of the controlled buy	Affidavit lacks explicit date/time of the buy so probable cause was stale	Affidavit said meeting occurred within 48 hours and described continuing drug sales; commonsense inference ties the buy to that meeting	Trial court properly deferred to magistrate; 48‑hour reference + ongoing activity sufficed to show recent probable cause
Whether McCord made a material false statement (Franks) by saying she “checked” the informant	“Checked” was misleading—pat‑down may miss small baggies; thus affidavit was recklessly false and material	Skinner failed to raise this specific Franks claim at trial (waiver); McCord credibly testified she pat‑down/emptied pockets and believed statement was true	Waived for appellate review; on merits, no Franks violation because affiant believed the statement and it was not shown false with reckless disregard
Whether the court erred by refusing to disclose the informant’s identity under Tex. R. Evid. 508	Informant’s ID needed because he could identify who sold the drugs and his testimony was relevant to legality of the warrant	Informant did not participate in the offense or the search; the court held an in‑camera hearing and found the informant credible; Rule 508 exceptions not met	Trial court did not abuse discretion: informant’s testimony was not necessary to a fair determination and court was satisfied as to reliability/credibility

Key Cases Cited

State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App.) (review of magistrate’s probable cause draws great deference; commonsense reading of affidavit)
Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (temporal and continuing‑activity inferences can cure lack of precise date)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for hearing when affidavit contains alleged intentional or reckless falsehoods)
Harris v. State, 227 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant must specifically point to alleged falsehoods and offer proof to obtain Franks relief)
Bodin v. State, 807 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant bears threshold burden to show informant’s identity must be disclosed under Rule 508)