State v. Blackshere
344 S.W.3d 400
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellee was charged with possession of methamphetamine in Brown County.
- Four days before trial, state police discovered the meth was missing from the evidence vault.
- Appellee moved to suppress, arguing state mismanagement violated constitutional/statutory provisions; court carried the motion to trial.
- At trial, after six witnesses, court suppressed the evidence, discharged the jury, and indicated possible post-trial appeal by the State.
- The court's oral ruling created confusion about whether it had dismissed the case or granted a directed verdict of acquittal; it stated jeopardy could attach and left open means to appeal.
- The court later issued written orders (Feb. 6, 2007) purporting to grant the motion to suppress, dismiss the case for bad faith, declare a mistrial, and discharge the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the State appeal a suppression order after jeopardy attached? | State contends Art. 44.01(a)(5) allows appeal of suppression order. | Jeopardy attached; appeal of suppression is barred by double jeopardy and statute text. | Double jeopardy bars the appeal of the suppression order after jeopardy attached. |
| Did the trial court's termination of prosecution amount to an acquittal or improper mistrial subject to appeal? | State seeks review of the termination as a legitimate appealable disposition. | Termination labeled as dismissal/mistrial cannot be reviewed without violating double jeopardy. | The court's termination effectively acquitted; such an acquittal precludes appellate review by the State. |
| Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review these issues under Article 44.01? | If termination is appealable, suppression issue could be considered via extended jurisdiction. | Extended-jurisdiction does not authorize review; double jeopardy prevents appeal of suppression after jeopardy. | Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the suppression issue; the termination issue is controlled by double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) (defining acquittal and double jeopardy implications of post-trial rulings)
- State v. Moreno, 294 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (acquittal-based double jeopardy limits on appellate review of suppression/element-based rulings)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (dismissal not jeopardy-barred when not based on insufficiency to convict)
- State v. Stanley, 201 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appeal allowed where decision did not resolve elements of offense)
- Sanalbre v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (constitutional error and acquittal boundaries on collateral review)
- Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1962) (egregiously erroneous acquittal still bars retrial)
- Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (acquittal based on insufficient evidence bars retries)
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) (jeopardy and acquittal definition for purposes of appeal)