Robert Tyrone Jones v. State, 05-16-00201-CR

Background

In the early morning, Officer Hamilton observed a vehicle stopped in the entrance driveway to an apartment complex with reverse/back-up lights on; he saw the same vehicle in the same spot about 30 minutes later.
Officer Hamilton approached the vehicle for a welfare check, looked in the window and saw appellant Robert Tyrone Jones asleep in the driver’s seat.
After waking Jones, the officer suspected impairment (slurred speech, red/glassy eyes) and smelled marijuana; Jones refused to exit the vehicle and backup officers were called.
During removal from the vehicle, officers observed a loaded gun under Jones’s leg and found two guns, knives, methamphetamine, marijuana, Xanax pills, scales, baggies, ammunition, and a magazine.
Jones was convicted of manufacturing/delivery of a controlled substance (40-year sentence) and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (10 years each). He appealed, raising (1) denial of his motion to suppress, (2) failure to give an Article 38.23 jury instruction, and (3) exclusion of certain closing-argument themes via a motion in limine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
1. Was the stop/detention justified under the community-caretaking doctrine?	Officer was primarily motivated by welfare concerns; observed circumstances justified welfare check and subsequent detention after smelling marijuana.	Officer lacked community-caretaking motivation; approaching and questioning Jones was an unlawful investigative detention.	Court: Denial of suppression affirmed — officer was credibly motivated by community caretaking and, under the totality of circumstances, reasonably believed Jones needed assistance.
2. Should the jury have been given an Article 38.23 instruction about allegedly illegally obtained evidence?	No disputed historical fact was raised for the jury; evidence (including video) showed reverse lights were on and the officer’s testimony supported the sequence.	Jones contends facts (e.g., whether reverse lights were on) were contested and raised a fact issue, entitling him to the instruction.	Court: No Article 38.23 instruction required — defense did not present affirmative, contested historical evidence for the jury to resolve.
3. Did the trial court improperly limit defense closing argument by granting the State's motion in limine (preventing argument that evidence was obtained illegally)?	The trial court correctly limited argument on legal issues already decided by the court; counsel could argue facts and request not guilty verdicts but not tell jury to disregard evidence on constitutional grounds.	Jones contends the limine ruling prevented essential arguments and denied effective assistance of counsel.	Court: Complaint not preserved and, on the merits, trial court properly limited argument about legal conclusions (constitutional violations) that were court-decided.

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (error-preservation can be met by plain-English objections understood by the court)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (plain-English objections suffice to preserve error)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
Lujan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court suppression rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (view evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court in suppression review)
Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (appellate review of trial court fact findings supporting suppression rulings)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community-caretaking doctrine described as distinct from criminal investigation)
Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (officer may stop to assist when reasonable person would believe help is needed)
Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (officer cannot invoke community caretaking if primarily motivated by investigatory purposes)
Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (two-step inquiry: officer's primary motivation and reasonableness of belief that help was needed)
Robinson v. State, 377 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (requirements for an Article 38.23 jury instruction)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cross-examination alone cannot create a disputed historical fact for Article 38.23)
Morehead v. State, 746 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (limits on argument about law not contained in the charge)
Toone v. State, 161 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. 1942) (cannot induce jury to disregard law)
Cook v. State, 540 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (parties may not state law contrary to the court's charge)
Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (definitive limine rulings can preserve error when they specify prohibited topics)
Harnett v. State, 38 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (granting a motion in limine is generally a preliminary ruling that does not by itself preserve error)