Persons, Marlo Donta, PD-0813-15

Defendant Mario Donta Persons was a passenger in a vehicle stopped May 11, 2013; trooper Rhone testified he stopped the car for following too closely and an obscured license plate.
Trooper found a loaded gun and ~1 kilogram of cocaine during a consensual search; Persons convicted of possession of 400+ grams with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 55 years.
The State introduced redacted dash‑cam video of the stop; Rhone testified the video corroborated his observation that Persons’ vehicle followed the lead car at an unsafe distance.
Defense introduced photographs and testimony suggesting the license‑plate obstruction might be ambiguous; defense argued the video created a factual dispute about following distance.
At charge conference defense requested an Article 38.23(a) jury instruction (instructing jury to disregard evidence obtained in violation of law) because factual disputes existed about the legality of the stop; trial court denied the instruction.
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the dash‑cam supported the officer’s account and no contested, material fact issue entitled Persons to an Article 38.23(a) instruction; rehearing was overruled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an Article 38.23(a) instruction was required because the dash‑cam and other evidence raised a contested factual issue about whether the stop was lawful (following too closely / license plate obstruction)	Persons: the dash‑cam and trial evidence created a disputed, material factual issue about measurable following distance, so Article 38.23(a) instruction was mandatory.	State/Trial court: the officer gave multiple lawful bases for the stop; the dash‑cam corroborates the officer on following distance so no disputed material fact exists requiring the instruction.	Court: No error. Video and undisputed facts supported the officer’s testimony about unsafe following distance; thus no Article 38.23(a) instruction was required.
Whether the Court of Appeals improperly decided an issue not briefed on appeal	Persons: the court addressed whether the video showed the vehicle was too close — an issue not raised on appeal — denying fair review.	State: appellate review focused on whether any disputed, material fact existed; deciding whether the video supports the officer’s testimony was necessary to resolving the Article 38.23(a) claim.	Court: Implicitly rejected the claim; held the appellate court’s assessment that the video corroborated the officer was appropriate and did not require remand.

Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Article 38.23(a) instruction required only when disputed, material factual issue exists)
Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reasonable‑suspicion standard: specific, articulable facts; objective inquiry)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (routine traffic stops implicate Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
Mills v. State, 296 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (discussing dash‑cam evidence and contested fact issues under Article 38.23)
Mendoza v. State, 88 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Article 38.23(a) creates a mandatory jury instruction when its prerequisites are met)