Runningwolf v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 473
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Michael Runningwolf was convicted in Texas for simulating legal process under § 32.48 after delivering a document titled Non-Statutory Abatement to Coleman, a non-member in a child-custody dispute.
- The Abatement contained legal-ese, an official seal, a jurisdictional claim, eight counts, and a demand that Coleman submit to ecclesiastical authority.
- Coleman called the police; officers advised the document was not legal process and warned of possible arrest for serving it as such.
- Appellant argued the evidence was legally insufficient, the statute was facially overbroad, and the statute infringed free exercise of religion; the Amarillo Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and upheld the conviction.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address the sufficiency issue and affirmed the Amarillo court.
- Standard of review requires that any rational juror could find each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence legally sufficient to prove simulating legal process under § 32.48? | Runningwolf | Runningwolf | Yes; sufficient evidence shows the Abatement simulated legal process and intended submission to its authority. |
| Should the court apply a totality-of-circumstances/‘reasonable person’ standard to determine puffed legal process? | Runningwolf | Runningwolf | Yes; the court should consider totality of circumstances and whether a similarly situated reasonable person would believe the document was legal process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Runningwolf v. State, 317 S.W.3d 829 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (establishes non-exhaustive factors to assess whether a document simulates legal process)
- Saldana v. State, 109 S.W.3d 4 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2002) (documents not issued by a court can still raise § 32.48 concerns; emphasis on statutory text)
- In re Godwin, 293 S.W.3d 742 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009) (ecclesiastical abstention; limits of court intervention in church matters where non-members are involved)