693 S.W.3d 385
Tex. Crim. App.2024Background
- Stocker was convicted of capital murder after evidence from his cell phone was admitted at trial.
- Stocker challenged the evidence, arguing that the warrant affidavit for his cell phone lacked probable cause.
- The trial court denied Stocker’s motion to suppress the cell phone evidence.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding the affidavit insufficient under recent Texas precedent (State v. Baldwin).
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to clarify the required nexus for cell phone search warrants and the proper reading of Baldwin.
Issues
| Issue | Stocker’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of warrant affidavit linking phone to crime | Warrant did not describe the crime or tie phone to offense | Magistrate can find probable cause without evidence of phone use at crime | Affidavit did not need proof of in-crime phone use |
| Required nexus between phone and offense | Baldwin requires specific facts linking phone to charged crime | Nexus can be broader; Baldwin misread by Court of Appeals | Baldwin does not mandate only those specific facts |
| Standard for probable cause in cell phone warrant | Appeals court correctly required particularized, direct facts | Appeals court imposed too high a standard contrary to flexibility | Appeals court used overly rigid standard |
| Whether error in admitting phone evidence was harmless | Error was not harmless; should reverse conviction | Should affirm conviction; error harmless or not present | Appeals court to reconsider in light of this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baldwin, 664 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (mere boilerplate on generic cell phone use does not establish probable cause; affidavit must link phone to offense)
- Stocker v. State, 656 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022) (underlying appellate holding requiring strong nexus between phone and offense proved at trial)