Martin Carter v. State, 01-16-00075-CR

On April 19, 2015 Deputy Garza observed Martin Carter driving without a current registration sticker and initiated a traffic stop; Carter accelerated, changed lanes, and drove into a residential neighborhood.
Garza pursued at times up to ~68 mph in a 30 mph zone, initially without activating lights/siren because she could not close the gap; once close, she activated lights and siren and later a louder siren/horn.
During the pursuit Carter failed to stop at multiple stop signs, accelerated, made several turns, and ultimately pulled into his driveway, exited his vehicle, and faced Garza.
Garza testified Carter’s license was suspended, no proof of insurance, and inspection expired; dash-cam video of the pursuit was admitted.
Carter was charged with and convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle (third-degree felony); sentence of 10 years was assessed pursuant to a post-verdict agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional evasion	State: Pursuit with lights/siren, high speed in residential area, multiple traffic violations, failure to stop supports intent to evade	Carter: Patrol car was a block+ behind, pursuit short (~2 minutes), speed/duration not remarkable, he returned to his driveway	Court: Evidence legally sufficient; jury could infer intent from conduct (speed, duration, traffic violations, failure to stop despite visible/sounding emergency equipment)
Whether prosecutor improperly commented on Carter's failure to testify (mistrial)	State: Argument referenced voir dire discussion that intent can be inferred from actions/conduct, not a comment on silence	Carter: Prosecutor’s remark implied he should have testified; instruction to disregard insufficient; mistrial required	Court: No error; comment, viewed in context, recognized defendant's right to silence and did not manifestly refer to his failure to testify; denial of mistrial affirmed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury and sufficiency framework)
Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (intent may be inferred from words, acts, and conduct)
Horne v. State, 228 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (anything less than prompt compliance can be evasion)
Reyes v. State, 465 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015) (following with lights/siren and running stop signs supports evasion conviction)
Bustamante v. State, 48 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant's failure to testify)
Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (distinguishing permissible argument from impermissible comment on silence)
Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (context determines whether prosecutor's remark is a comment on defendant's silence)