Steven Douglas McCoslin v. State, 558 S.W.3d 816

McCoslin was charged by information with indecent exposure for exposing his genitals and masturbating in a hotel room and recklessness because he left the door ajar and asked the clerk to enter. He pleaded not guilty.
On the day the jury was impaneled and sworn, McCoslin filed a motion to quash the information (challenging notice as to the alleged reckless acts) and a pretrial motion to suppress a hotel receipt that identified him. Both motions were denied.
At trial the night clerk testified she brought food to McCoslin’s room, which was ajar; she entered after he invited her, saw his genitals exposed, and observed him masturbating.
The jury convicted; the trial court sentenced McCoslin to 180 days’ confinement, probated for 15 months, and a $1,000 fine.
On appeal McCoslin argued (1) the information was insufficient / improperly amended and (2) the hotel receipt identifying him should have been suppressed because it was obtained without a warrant.
The court held McCoslin waived the timeliness challenge to the information because the motion to quash was filed after the jury was impaneled and sworn, and waived suppression error by offering the receipt into evidence at trial; the convictions were affirmed.

Issue	McCoslin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness/ sufficiency of charging instrument (motion to quash)	Information (or its amendment) failed to allege specific acts showing recklessness; amendment was void for lack of leave	Motion to quash was untimely because filed after jury impaneled and sworn; thus complaint waived; alternatively information was sufficient	Motion to quash untimely (waived). Court also found information, as pleaded, sufficient to allege recklessness (door ajar + requesting entry)
Suppression of hotel receipt identifying defendant	Receipt (hotel records) obtained without warrant violated privacy; evidence should be suppressed and case dismissed	Defendant waived suppression by introducing the receipt at trial; alternatively merits fail	Waived: defendant affirmatively offered the receipt at trial, thereby abandoning prior suppression claim; issue not reached on merits

Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (constitutional double jeopardy attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
State v. Moreno, 294 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses when jeopardy attaches)
Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App.) (indecent-exposure recklessness element requires allegations about circumstances showing risk another is present)
State v. Rodriguez, 339 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstances must show why otherwise lawful act is reckless)
Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affirmative acceptance at trial waives prior suppression error)
Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant preserves suppression claim pretrial but may waive by stating no objection at trial)
Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App.) (waiver not found only when record shows defendant did not intend to abandon suppression claim)