Medrano, Carlos v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 860
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Medrano was convicted of illegal voting after a bench trial and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, with a $2,500 fine.
- The indictment charged Medrano with soliciting and aiding Veronica Medrano to vote for him while she did not reside in his precinct.
- Veronica testified with immunity and admitted voting; her testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including a Facebook message and voting records.
- The State relied on the Texas Election Code and related statutes granting the Attorney General authority to prosecute election offenses in certain counties.
- The Rockwall County grand jury indicted Veronica and several Medrano family members; Medrano’s case and related cases were tried together starting December 29, 2011, with February 2012 reconvened proceedings.
- The court addressed whether the AG could prosecute election-code offenses independently, whether the indictment was legally sufficient, and whether the evidence supported Medrano’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separation of powers challenge to Chapter 273 | Medrano: Chapter 273 vests prosecutorial power in the executive branch, violating Art. II separation. | State: Chapter 273 is constitutional; it allows the AG to prosecute independently. | Chapter 273 does not violate separation of powers; constitutional authority stands. |
| Jurisdiction and deputation for AG prosecutors | Pirtle controls; no deputation order if AG prosecutes independently. | AG has independent statutory authority to prosecute; deputation not required. | No deputation order necessary; AG may prosecute election-code offenses independently. |
| Indictment states an offense and vests jurisdiction | Indictment failed to allege Veronica’s lack of residency in the election territory, undermining offense. | Indictment sets out elements of illegal voting and identifies the relevant statute. | Indictment sufficient to charge illegal voting; jurisdiction preserved. |
| Sufficiency of evidence tying Medrano to Veronica's illegal voting | State failed to corroborate Veronica as an accomplice; Facebook evidence insufficient. | Facebook and other evidence corroborate Medrano’s role in supporting the offense. | Evidence sufficient to establish Medrano as a party to Veronica’s illegal voting. |
| Admission of 37 business records; Rule 902(10) compliance | Records were not filed 14 days before trial; improper admission. | Procedural circumstances and trial schedule abated prejudice; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse of discretion; court did not err in admitting the records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (separation of powers and interbranch limitations)
- Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (DA duties may be executive in nature; constitutional duties interpreted together with AG)
- Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (DA duties vs AG authority; constitution permits AG duties under Article IV, §22)
- Brady v. Brooks, 89 S.W. 1052 (Tex. 1905) (AG authority to represent state may co-exist with DA duties; legislative empowerment via Article IV, §22)
- Duron v. State, 956 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (indictment may allege facts without invalidating offense elements)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W. 486 (Tex. App. 1888) (knowledge of illegality can be inferred; ignorance of law not a defense to voting offense)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; accomplice corroboration)