Schmutz v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 121
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Randy Schmutz indicted in Titus County for hindering a secured creditor; venue alleged under Article 13.09.
- Indictment alleged Titus County venue for disposal of secured property, but record showed property disposed of in Erath County.
- Trial court denied pretrial venue challenges; jury convicted Schmutz and sentenced him to five years’ community supervision with restitution.
- Court of Appeals held the State’s failure to prove venue as alleged was error but reviewed under harm analysis per Rule 44.2(b).
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held venue error is subject to harm analysis (not automatic reversal) under Rule 44.2(b) and that the State’s failure to prove venue was harmless.
- Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment that the venue error was harmless under the non-constitutional harm standard and rejected automatic-reversal arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue error is subject to harm analysis or automatic reversal | Schmutz argues venue error requires automatic reversal under Black | State argues venue error should be reviewed under 44.2(b) harm standard | Venue error is subject to harm analysis under 44.2(b) |
| Whether the State's failure to prove venue was harmless | Schmutz contends the error harmed substantial rights | State contends error was harmless given record | The failure to prove venue was harmless |
| Whether venue rules implicate federal vicinage or due-process rights | Schmutz asserts vicinage clause applicable and structural/constitutional error | State argues vicinage not applicable in Texas state courts | Venue error is non-constitutional and does not implicate vicinage or due-process guarantees |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. State, 645 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (automatic reversal for venue error before Rule 44.2(b))
- Jones v. State, 979 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (venue automatic reversal not applied post-amendments)
- Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (structural error rule; harm analysis for non-structural errors)
- Mercier v. State, 322 S.W.3d 258 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (harm analysis framework for non-structural errors)
- Gray v. State, 159 S.W.3d 95 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (harm analysis governs non-structural errors)
- Mason v. State, 322 S.W.3d 251 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (excludes repeat-error factor from 44.2(b) harm analysis)
- Paiz v. State, 817 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (vicinage issue discussed; vicinage doctrine not binding on state prosecutions)