Smith v. State
363 S.W.3d 761
Tex. App.2012Background
- Smith was convicted by bench trial of failure to identify as a fugitive from justice, based partly on her use of the nickname 'Jay Smith'.
- The offense involved Smith allegedly giving a false or fictitious name to a peace officer who had lawfully detained her and had warrants for her arrest.
- Officer Ferry detained Smith, asked for her name, and she replied 'Jay Smith', which differed from the name on her driver's license.
- Smith argued that 'Jay Smith' was a legitimate longtime nickname, not a false or fictitious name under Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(b).
- Smith challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the court’s denial of her post-waiver request to withdraw a jury waiver.
- The record shows a lengthy procedural history, including multiple continuances, two different attorneys, and trial-date shifts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury waiver valid and withdrawn properly? | Smith argues waiver was ineffective and withdrawal was improperly denied. | State argues waiver was express, knowing, and intelligent; withdrawal within court’s discretion. | Waiver valid; denial of withdrawal not an abuse of discretion. |
| Is the evidence legally sufficient to prove 'false' or 'fictitious' name beyond a reasonable doubt? | Jay Smith is a true, longstanding nickname; not false or fictitious. | Jay Smith was not true to the license name and was used to deceive under the statute. | Evidence legally sufficient to prove intent to deceive; Jay Smith qualifies as false/fictitious. |
| Does the construction of 'false' and 'fictitious' require the name to be the legal name or merely not true? | Nickname can be legitimate and not false under ordinary usage. | Any name other than the legal name can be false or fictitious in context. | Context and intent govern falsity; not strictly limited to the legal name. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (jury-waiver validity and withdrawal standards)
- Marquez v. State, 921 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (trial-court discretion on waiver withdrawal)
- Green v. State, 36 S.W.3d 211 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (prejudice and procedure in withdrawal of waiver)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (express and intelligent consent for waiver of rights)
- Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (due process considerations in waiver of rights)
- Guillett v. State, 677 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (requirements for knowing waiver and jury rights)
- Samudio v. State, 648 S.W.2d 312 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (contextual analysis of jury waiver)