347 S.W.3d 924
Tex. App.2011Background
- MumboJumbo, LLC sued PopCap Games, Inc. and PopCap Games International, Ltd. in a lengthy, complex action.
- After a jury trial, MumboJumbo moved for sanctions alleging PopCap made baseless allegations of concealment and suborning perjury.
- The trial court granted sanctions only as to PopCap’s counsel’s alleged open-court accusation of MumboJumbo’s suborning perjury.
- The court found Oscar Rey Rodriguez accused MumboJumbo’s counsel of suborning perjury in open court and ordered him to publish an apology.
- Rodriguez appealed, arguing there was no evidence supporting the sanction and that the sanction violated his rights.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding there was no evidence to support the sanction and that the sanction was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sanction was validly based on suborning perjury | Rodriguez contends there was no evidence he accused MumboJumbo’s counsel of suborning perjury | MumboJumbo contends the court correctly sanctioned Rodriguez for the in-court accusation | Sanction reversed; no evidence supported suborning perjury finding |
| Whether the trial court misapplied the law on subornation of perjury | Rodriguez argues his statements did not prove subornation of perjury by MumboJumbo’s counsel | PopCap/MumboJumbo argued the statements implicated counsel in perjury | Abuse of discretion; no subornation evidence; order invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. French, 164 S.W.3d 487 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions; arbitrary or unreasonable ruling)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.1985) (test for abuse of discretion; weight of evidence)
- Davis v. Rupe, 307 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (factfinder’s duty to weigh evidence and deduct reasonably)
- Hardy v. State, 246 S.W.3d 290 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (definition of subornation of perjury; intent to promote witness to commit perjury)
- Stevens v. State, 820 S.W.2d 930 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991) (knowledge alone of crime does not constitute subornation)