Salazar, Raul Garza
PD-1160-15
| Tex. App. | Sep 30, 2015Background
- Salazar was convicted by a Cameron County jury of two counts of abuse of official capacity and one count of tampering with governmental records; the State alleged he directed an HR employee to take exams for Cadriel to help him obtain a Cameron County job; the exams involved a civil service test and an electric security guard exam with an answer key provided by Salazar; Salazar appealed and moved to supplement the record with a bill of exceptions; the Court of Appeals denied supplementation and affirmed the judgment; Salazar sought discretionary review seeking supplementation before decision; the petition was granted to consider whether the record should be supplemented under Tex.R.App.P. 34.6(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals should have remanded to supplement the record before decision | Salazar/Salazar sought supplementation of the record to include a verified bill of exceptions | State argues the issue is not properly raised and that supplementation was not required | Petition granted; complete record required for decision; remand for supplementation warranted |
| Whether the indictment failed to state an offense | Salazar contends lacking consent element renders indictment defective | State contends consent is not a material element; indictment adequate | Indictment states the material elements; no waiver due to failure to object prior to trial; indictment upheld |
| Whether Salazar validly waived any errors due to lack of record cites | Salazar argues procedural errors were preserved for review | State asserts waiver for failure to cite to the record | Salazar failed to provide record citations; issues reviewed only to extent supported; issue 2 exception addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (presumption of record supplementation; extratextual factors considered in rule interpretation)
- Worthy v. Collagen Corp., 967 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. 1998) (prior rule required supplementation unless delay would be unreasonable)
- Hudnall v. State, 296 S.W.293 (Tex.Crim.App. 1927) (historical role of trial judge in approving statements of facts)
- Ex parte Patterson, 969 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (waiver rules for defects in charging instruments)
- Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (elements required to state an offense; consent not required where not element)
- Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (for substance defects, objection required before trial)
- Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (appellate review requires pinpoint record citations)
- Campbell v. State, 139 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003) (indictment need not allege every element if sufficient to notify)
- Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (indictment must allege all material elements or provide notice)