656 S.W.3d 887
Tex. App.2022Background
- August 22, 2017: Brent Tapp (a homeless man) was shot in the leg near a homeless encampment; witnesses identified the second-floor balcony of a nearby townhouse and police associated Stocker with that address; officers recovered multiple firearms and ammunition from the townhouse.
- November 7, 2017: Tapp was shot multiple times and killed at the same location; a bullet recovered from his body was ballistically matched to a .45 caliber Beretta later found in Stocker’s possession.
- Stocker was arrested in January 2018; police seized his Samsung phone and obtained three warrants for T-Mobile records (cell-site location information, CSLI) and a warrant to search the phone.
- At trial Stocker was convicted of capital murder on a theory that the killing was retaliation/obstruction (related to the prior August aggravated assault); the State relied on ballistics, witness ID from August, T-Mobile CSLI, and contents of Stocker’s phone (texts, internet searches) to prove identity and motive.
- On appeal Stocker challenged sufficiency of the evidence (identity), the admissibility of evidence seized from the townhouse, the search of his Samsung phone, the T-Mobile CSLI, and admission of the August-shooting evidence as an extraneous offense.
- The court held the evidence sufficient as to identity, upheld suppression rulings except it found the warrant to search the Samsung phone lacked probable cause and that its erroneous admission was harmful; it reversed and remanded for a new trial. The T-Mobile CSLI warrant and the townhouse seizure and admission of the August-shooting evidence were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Stocker’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (identity) | Evidence did not establish Stocker was the November shooter | Ballistics (Beretta matched fatal bullet), witness ID from August, CSLI and phone evidence tied Stocker to scene/motive | Evidence legally sufficient to support conviction (identity proved) |
| Motion to suppress Samsung phone (search warrant) | Affidavit lacked nexus/probable cause to search phone contents | Affiant’s experience and boilerplate about criminals using phones justified warrant | Warrant affidavit insufficient (no factual nexus to murder); admission was error and was harmful — reversal/remand |
| Motion to suppress T-Mobile CSLI | CSLI warrant insufficient under Carpenter/article I, §9 | Affidavit linked Stocker to .45 murder weapon and sought location data; probable cause existed | Warrant supported by probable cause; trial court did not err in denying suppression |
| Suppression of items seized from townhouse (Aug. execution) | Affidavit misstated victim’s name and appellant was not present — invalid search/seizure | Victim’s report and officer observations provided probable cause; officers reasonably believed suspect might be inside | No Franks violation; magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; seizure and plain-view collection upheld |
| Admission of August shooting as extraneous offense (Rule 404/403) | Prior-shooting evidence was unfairly prejudicial and propensity evidence | Evidence relevant to motive, identity, and context; probative value outweighed prejudice | Admission proper under Rule 404(b) and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (warrant required for historical cell-site location information)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones carry significant privacy interests)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant voided if affidavit contains material falsehoods made knowingly or recklessly)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)
- Bonds v. State, 403 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (probable-cause nexus requirement)
- Duarte v. State, 389 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (deferential review of magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (preference for searches pursuant to warrants; reviewing standard)
- Holder v. State, 595 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (Carpenter applied to Texas Constitution; CSLI requires probable cause)
- Granville v. State, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (expectation of privacy in phone contents)
- Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (constitutional-harm analysis under Rule 44.2(a))
- Wells v. State, 611 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (assessing whether error contributed to conviction)