State v. Chupik
343 S.W.3d 144
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellee was stopped for weaving; officer administered three field-sobriety tests including HGN and then arrested him.
- Trial court suppressed post-HGN statements, finding appellee was in custody and Miranda was not given.
- State appealed under Article 44.01(a)(5) certifying the suppressed evidence was of substantial importance.
- Court of Appeals held the record did not show suppression of any post-HGN questioning and dismissed the appeal.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the record need not reflect the suppressed evidence for an Article 44.01(a)(5) appeal; certification of substantial importance suffices.
- The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for merits review of the State’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the record show the suppressed evidence to sustain an Article 44.01(a)(5) appeal? | Chupik argued the record must reflect the fruits of suppression. | Chupik contends suppression details are not required for jurisdiction. | No; record need not reflect suppressed evidence. |
| Is the State's certification that the suppressed evidence is of substantial importance sufficient to authorize appeal? | State contends certification alone grants jurisdiction. | Appellee argues certification cannot substitute for evidentiary showing. | Yes; certification suffices to authorize the interlocutory appeal. |
| Does Gonzales require identification of the fruits of suppression for Article 44.01(a)(5) appeals? | State relies on Gonzales as guiding precedent. | Appellee argues identification is necessary. | Not controlling under Article 44.01(a)(5); not required here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (certification-based jurisdiction; no challenge to certification allowed)
- Gonzales v. State, 966 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (two-step fruits analysis in pretrial suppression appeals (context))
- Ferguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (early rule on suppression appeals; later modified)
- Morgan v. State, 688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (overruled Ferguson in relevant respect)
- McKenna v. State, 780 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (importance of fruits analysis in review)
- Kraft v. State, 762 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (fruits concept for appellate review of suppression)
- Isam v. State, 582 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (early causal/fruit-of-evidence line)