Ramon Marroquin v. State, 02-13-00223-CR

Background

Appellants (Faust and Marroquin) were prosecuted under Tex. Penal Code § 38.15 for interfering with a peace officer who was controlling the crowd at a gay pride parade after being ordered not to cross a street.
At trial appellants filed identical motions arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied (First and Fourteenth Amendments) and sought judgments finding them "not guilty."
Trial counsel primarily argued the officers exceeded their lawful authority (constitutional as-applied challenge) but also argued the defendants' actions amounted to "speech only," a statutory defense under § 38.15.
The trial court asked what remedy was sought; appellants asked for acquittals. The court denied the motions and convicted the appellants.
The dissent criticizes the presentation and preservation of issues: by requesting acquittals rather than separately obtaining an adverse ruling on the as-applied constitutional claim, appellants risked forfeiting preservation of that claim on appeal.
The dissent would remand to the court of appeals to first analyze sufficiency of the evidence (directed-verdict/instructed-verdict challenge) before addressing any preserved as-applied constitutional claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellants preserved an as-applied constitutional challenge to § 38.15	Appellants argued statute unconstitutional as applied and sought not-guilty judgments	State contended officers were performing lawful duties and appellants failed to preserve the constitutional challenge by only requesting acquittal	Dissent: preservation unclear; appellants' request for acquittal insulated outcome from appeal and may have failed to preserve the as-applied claim; remand to address sufficiency first
Whether the trial court should have granted instructed verdicts / whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove offense elements	Appellants argued conduct was "speech only" or officers lacked authority, so elements not proved	State argued elements were met because officers exercised lawful authority to control the crowd	Dissent: court of appeals should have reviewed denial of instructed verdicts as legal-sufficiency challenges before addressing constitutional questions
Whether an acquittal versus dismissal affects appellate review of constitutional claims	Appellants sought acquittal based on constitutional argument	State argued an acquittal blocks appeal; constitutional dismissals (not acquittals) are reviewable by State in certain contexts	Dissent: an acquittal bars retrial/appeal; constitutional relief typically requires dismissal, so requesting acquittal complicated preservation and appellate review
Proper scope of § 38.15 (conduct vs. speech)	Appellants maintained their acts were protected speech and thus within § 38.15(d) defense	State argued statute criminalizes conduct (not mere speech) and officers acted within lawful duties	Dissent: statute can be applied to conduct; if acts were "speech only" that is a statutory defense and sufficiency question that should be addressed first

Key Cases Cited

Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App.) (preservation of error is a systemic requirement)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App.) (what is required to properly preserve a claim)
State v. Blackshere, 344 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. Crim. App.) (acquittal bars appellate review under double jeopardy principles)
State v. Moreno, 294 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate courts look to substance of order to determine if it resolves factual elements of the offense)
Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treating denial of directed verdict as legal-sufficiency challenge)
Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. Crim. App.) (risks of failing to preserve constitutional claims when only requesting acquittal)
Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.]) (statute penalizes conduct rather than speech)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S.) (ordinance criminalizing verbal interruptions of police violated First Amendment)