Mark Gordon McMurphy v. State
03-15-00246-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 24, 2015Background
- Appellant Mark McMurphy was indicted for DWI with two or more priors (charged Oct. 3, 2013) but was tried and convicted of assault on a public servant; jury returned guilty verdict and sentenced him to 60 years' imprisonment.
- Incident arose from an EZ Mart call; Officer Pelata encountered McMurphy in the store parking lot and administered field sobriety tests on scene.
- Pelata arrested McMurphy for DWI though there was no trial evidence that McMurphy had been driving on a public road or highway.
- McMurphy refused a blood draw; Pelata obtained a warrant based on an affidavit that, at trial, Pelata conceded contained statements he had not made (e.g., speaking to witnesses and qualifying McMurphy for SFSTs).
- Trial court denied McMurphy’s pretrial motion to suppress the blood evidence and other challenged evidence; that denial was re-urged after Pelata’s trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McMurphy) | Held (procedural posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of DWI evidence | The State contends the evidence (officer observations and tests) supports conviction of the charged offense. | McMurphy argues evidence is legally and factually insufficient because there was no proof he operated a vehicle on a public road or highway. | Trial court convicted McMurphy; appellant asks this Court to find legal insufficiency and reverse. |
| Factual sufficiency of evidence | The State defends jury verdict as supported by record and credibility determinations. | McMurphy argues verdict is against the great weight of the evidence and shocks the conscience; contrary proof outweighs State’s proof. | No relief granted at trial; appellant seeks reversal/remand for retrial. |
| Admissibility of blood draw (Franks challenge) | The State maintains the warrant and blood evidence were valid. | McMurphy asserts the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods/reckless misstatements (witness statements and SFST qualifications), so the warrant was unsupported. | Motion to suppress was denied by the trial court despite officer’s trial admission of inaccuracies; appellant argues suppression was required. |
| Whether false affidavit content, if excised, leaves probable cause | The State argues remaining facts support probable cause for warrant. | McMurphy contends that removing false statements leaves insufficient content to establish probable cause. | Trial court allowed use of blood-evidence; appellant asks appellate reversal based on Franks and Texas precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for challenging a warrant affidavit based on alleged deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth)
- Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factual-sufficiency review and standards for appellate reassessment of the weight of the evidence)
- Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (describes remedies when reversing for legal or factual insufficiency and lesser-included handling)
- Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (on appellate reversal for factual sufficiency and the requirement to explain alternative causation theories)
- Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (probable-cause sufficiency after excising false statements from a warrant affidavit)