State of Texas v. Duran, Anthony
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 715
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Officer Candia, en route to a domestic-violence call, sped south on Zaragoza at night and did not activate lights or siren.
- Duran, driving northbound on Zaragoza, made a left turn in front of the speeding patrol car, causing the officer to brake and follow behind.
- Two seconds after the turn, Candia activated lights and siren to effect a traffic stop; Duran’s tire briefly crossed the center yellow line.
- At suppression, Candia testified he stopped after he believed Duran failed to yield and after observing the turn; he later claimed the center stripe violation.
- Trial judge found the center-stripe violation played no part in the stop, doubted Candia saw it, and concluded the stop was solely based on an unlawful left turn; suppression was granted.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding that video evidence provided an objective basis for the stop; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address the proper standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate courts must defer to trial-court factual findings. | State argues defer to totality of findings. | Duran argues de novo review appropriate when credibility is at stake. | Yes; defer to totality of findings. |
| Whether post hoc video evidence can alter the standard of review for credibility. | State contends video justifies stop objectively. | Duran contends credibility determinations control. | No; credibility and totality control; deference upheld. |
| Did Candia actually see the center stripe violation before detaining Duran? | State asserts the DVD shows the violation occurred before the stop. | Duran asserts the trial judge could reasonably find no sighting prior to the stop. | Record supports trial court's finding that Candia did not see the center stripe before stopping. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard for detentions)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (police may detain based on reasonable suspicion for any valid related offense)
- Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (specific articulable facts known at detention determine reasonable suspicion)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (collective knowledge and factual assessment in stop analysis)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (indisputable visual evidence may trump credibility in some contexts)
- Gobert v. State, 275 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to trial court’s factual findings when supported by record)