State v. Hill
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1124
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Albert G. Hill III and his wife were indicted in 2011 for allegedly making false statements to obtain a $500,000 home-equity loan; indictments against Erin Hill were later dismissed.
- Hill alleged the state prosecution was motivated by improper outside influence: complaints and communications from his father and from attorney Lisa Blue (aka Lisa Blue Baron), and campaign donations to then-DA Craig Watkins.
- Hill filed a pretrial Motion to Quash and Dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct (vindictive and selective prosecution and deprivation of a disinterested prosecutor) and attached extensive exhibits (including phone records and correspondence).
- The trial court exercised its discretion under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 28.01 to hold an evidentiary pretrial hearing, subpoenaed DA personnel and private attorneys, and ordered testimony.
- Watkins and Blue largely refused to testify; the court found Watkins’s refusal denied Hill a meaningful hearing and dismissed the indictments with prejudice. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding a pretrial evidentiary hearing on a motion to quash/dismiss | Article 28.01 permits pretrial hearings; Hill presented exhibits raising a colorable claim and was entitled to a hearing to prove prosecutorial misconduct | Federal precedent requires a threshold prima facie showing ("some evidence") before an evidentiary hearing; hearing here was improper and amounted to discovery | Texas Supreme Court: trial court had discretion under Article 28.01 to hold the pretrial evidentiary hearing; no abuse of discretion to do so |
| Whether federal cases like Armstrong require a defendant to meet a threshold before a state trial court may hold a hearing | Armstrong and related federal cases do not control state courts’ discretionary authority to hold pretrial evidentiary hearings under Article 28.01 | Armstrong and its progeny require a showing before discovery/hearing; trial court erred by not applying that standard | Court: Armstrong is inapplicable to the discrete question whether a Texas trial court may exercise Article 28.01 discretion to hold a hearing; federal precedents do not bar the hearing |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed indictments when Watkins refused to testify | Hill: Watkins’s refusal denied a meaningful hearing; dismissal was warranted | State: dismissal was an excessive sanction and flowed from improper compelled testimony and discovery; court should not have dismissed | Court did not resolve merits of dismissal/sanction issues; remanded to court of appeals to consider State’s remaining challenges (issues 3 and 4) |
| Standard required to obtain pretrial evidentiary hearing on prosecutorial-misconduct claims | Hill: a defendant who attaches a colorable proffer and exhibits showing a constitutional claim should be permitted a hearing | State: defendant must make a prima facie showing of selective/vindictive prosecution ("some evidence") before a hearing | Court: decline to decide precise threshold for entitlement to a hearing on appeal from the State; held only that trial court had discretion to hold a hearing and left threshold question for a different posture |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1996) (federal rule requiring threshold showing before discovery for selective-prosecution claims)
- United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1998) (discussing need for facts creating reasonable doubt about prosecution’s constitutionality before a hearing)
- In re United States, 397 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2005) (addressing scope of discovery and limits post-Armstrong)
- Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial court discretion to resolve pretrial claims of vindictiveness; defendant must raise such claims pretrial)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial judge has discretion what information to consider at pretrial rulings; statutory construction principles)
- State v. Terrazas, 962 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (trial court has authority to dismiss indictments after evidentiary hearing; appellate review required)