Latharian Devante Merritt v. State, 01-18-00607-CR

Four teenagers (including M.S., Holt, and Bharrat) lured victims into a Fort Worth residence during a planned robbery; two men were shot and one (Walker) died.
M.S., who participated in planning and the entry, provided detectives with a photograph, nicknames, and a physical description identifying appellant Latharian Merritt (known as “Larry”); Holt corroborated Merritt’s identity.
Detective Knotts’s sworn affidavit to a magistrate recited M.S.’s statements, corroborating details (e.g., white vehicle sightings), and identified Merritt by photo/description; a warrant issued and Merritt was arrested.
After arrest Merritt gave two statements admitting he shot Walker; before trial he moved to suppress those statements as fruits of an unlawful arrest (arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause and, on appeal, that it omitted material falsehoods per Franks).
At trial the court denied suppression; the jury charge included language that the State need not prove guilt “beyond all possible doubt” but must exclude all “reasonable doubt.” Merritt was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole.

Issue	Merritt's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of arrest warrant / suppression of statements	Warrant lacked probable cause; affidavit omitted material falsehoods about M.S.’s credibility (Franks theory)	Review is limited to the four corners of the affidavit; affidavit supplied a substantial basis for probable cause; no preserved Franks omission	Court affirmed denial of suppression — error not preserved for Franks argument; affidavit supported probable cause
Jury charge: language on reasonable doubt	The instruction stating proof need not be "beyond all possible doubt" misstated reasonable doubt	First and Second Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals precedent permit the language	Court held the charge language was not erroneous

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requiring a hearing and possible suppression when an affidavit includes knowingly false statements or material omissions made with reckless disregard for truth)
Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (magistrate-deference and four‑corners review of warrant affidavits)
State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (court bound by the four corners of the affidavit when assessing probable cause)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings: deference to trial court fact findings, review of law de novo)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (requirements for timely and specific objections to preserve error on appeal)
Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (approving certain reasonable‑doubt charge language)
Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (similar approval of reasonable‑doubt instruction language)
Darby v. State, 145 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (applying Franks analysis to alleged material omissions in affidavits)