Larry Dunn, Jr. v. State
05-13-01712-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2015Background
- Dunn was indicted for the murder of Cicely Bolden in Dallas County, Texas.
- The stabbing occurred about a week after Dunn learned Bolden was HIV positive and Dunn stated he killed her after becoming enraged.
- During guilt/innocence, Dunn initially pleaded not guilty but later changed to guilty after the State rested.
- Evidence included Dunn’s interview with Detective Tabor and a Fox News jailhouse interview admitting rage but denying intent to kill.
- At punishment, Dunn testified about HIV-related concerns and emotional distress; the State introduced text messages and other communications.
- The jury was charged on whether Dunn acted under sudden passion arising from an adequate cause and answered no, imposing 40 years in confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury’s finding on sudden passion is against the weight of the evidence | Dunn argues evidence shows sudden passion from provocation. | State contends evidence supports lack of sudden passion; issue for jury credibility. | No manifestly unjust finding; we overrule the issue. |
| Whether admission of Bolden text messages found on Bolden’s phone was improper | Dunn contends warrantless search violated Fourth Amendment standing. | State argues Dunn had no privacy interest in Bolden’s phone; no standing. | No abuse of discretion; Dunn lacked standing; text messages admissible. |
| Whether the judgment should reflect Dunn pleaded guilty | Dunn’s plea status was mis-stated in the judgment. | State cross-point seeks correction to reflect guilty plea. | We reform the judgment to reflect Dunn pleaded guilty and affirm as reformed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Naasz v. State, 974 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (standard for reviewing manifestly unjust findings on evidence)
- Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (principles for evaluating evidence under great weight and preponderance)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant generally required for search of cell phone contents)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (privacy expectations in cell phones for Fourth Amendment analysis)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (standing to challenge search of another’s cell phone)
- Granville v. State, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (factors for reasonable expectation of privacy in searched object)