Robert Tyrone Jones v. State, 05-16-00204-CR

Background

Officer Hamilton observed a vehicle twice, about 30 minutes apart, stopped in the entrance driveway of an apartment complex with reverse/backup lights illuminated; when he approached the car he saw appellant Robert Jones asleep in the driver’s seat.
The officer performed a welfare check, smelled marijuana, and asked Jones to exit; Jones refused, backup officers arrived, and a loaded handgun was observed under Jones’s leg during removal.
Officers recovered two handguns, knives on Jones’s person, and in the vehicle a case containing methamphetamine, marijuana, Xanax, a chrome weight, digital scales, Ziploc baggies, ammunition, and a magazine.
Jones was convicted of manufacturing/delivery of a controlled substance (40 years) and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (10 years each); he appealed raising three issues.
Appellate issues: (1) motion to suppress — whether the initial detention was justified under the community-caretaking doctrine; (2) whether an article 38.23 jury instruction was required on the legality of the stop; (3) whether the court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine restricting defense closing argument about alleged illegal evidence acquisition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all issues, upholding denial of suppression, refusing the article 38.23 instruction, and rejecting the argument that the limine ruling deprived Jones of effective argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
1. Motion to suppress: Was the seizure justified under community-caretaking?	Officer Hamilton reasonably approached to perform a welfare check given the car’s location, lights on, same position 30 minutes later, and seeing Jones asleep; smelling marijuana provided reasonable suspicion to detain.	The initial approach and detention were unlawful; no criminal activity observed and community-caretaking did not justify the stop.	The court deferred to trial-court credibility, held the officer was primarily motivated by caretaking and reasonably believed Jones needed help; denial of suppression affirmed.
2. Article 38.23 jury instruction: Should jury have been instructed to disregard evidence allegedly obtained illegally?	No disputed historical fact was affirmatively raised at trial requiring an article 38.23 instruction; video showed reverse lights on and officer never conceded the lights were not on.	The presence of reverse lights was a disputed fact (officer’s report lacked mention), raising a fact issue for the jury under article 38.23.	The court held Jones did not raise an affirmative, contested historical fact for the jury; no article 38.23 instruction required.
3. Motion in limine / closing argument: Did the limine improperly limit defense argument about illegal stop?	The court may bar argument that asks jury to decide constitutional law — judge correctly limited argument about alleged constitutional violation after ruling on suppression.	The limine and court’s ruling prevented necessary argument and infringed defense counsel’s ability to argue essential points to the jury.	Error not preserved (no timely specific objection); even if preserved, the limitation was proper: counsel could argue facts and urge not guilty but not assert the jury decide constitutional/legal issues the court removed.

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (error-preservation rules allow plain English objections; no rigid formula required)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (straightforward communication suffices to preserve complaint)
Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (two-step inquiry for community-caretaking: primary motivation and reasonableness of belief assistance was needed)
Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (officer may stop to assist when a reasonable person would believe help is needed)
Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (officer may not invoke community caretaking if primarily motivated by investigatory purpose)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (recognizing police community-caretaking functions distinct from criminal investigation)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standards for when article 38.23 jury instruction is required)
Morehead v. State, 746 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (article 38.23 instruction and jury role when contested fact on illegality exists)
Lujan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review of suppression rulings)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression hearings)
Woodard v. State, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (view evidence in light most favorable to trial court’s ruling on suppression)
Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (review scope when trial court makes fact findings)
Cook v. State, 540 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (counsel may not state legal propositions to jury that contradict the court’s charge)
Toone v. State, 161 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (prohibiting appeals to jury to disregard the law)
Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (definitive in-court rulings on limine can preserve what was excluded for appeal)