Ted Clinton Murray v. State
11-15-00112-CR
| Tex. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Ted Clinton Murray was convicted of theft (< $1,500) with two prior theft convictions; sentence: 2 years state jail and $1,000 fine.
- Pawnshop manager and employee identified Murray on store surveillance video carrying a blue electric guitar out of EZ Pawn without paying; video and eyewitness ID were admitted at trial.
- Odessa police officers viewed the surveillance video, Corporal Troglin recognized Murray, then went to Murray’s property where he observed a silver Cadillac with the guitar on the front passenger seat.
- Troglin entered the residence after seeing open doors and motion; Murray’s mother testified she did not invite the officer in and that the officer did not identify himself or knock.
- Troglin detained and arrested Murray, retrieved the guitar from the vehicle with apparent permission from Murray’s mother, and EZ Pawn employees identified the guitar as the stolen property.
- At trial Murray sought (1) an Article 38.23 jury instruction to exclude evidence allegedly obtained by illegal entry/seizure and (2) a directed verdict based on an illegal search and arrest; both requests were denied and Murray appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murray) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an Article 38.23 jury instruction | Murray argued a disputed factual issue existed whether Troglin had consent to enter the house, so jury should be instructed to disregard evidence obtained after the entry | State argued Murray failed to contest material facts (e.g., Murray lived in a separate structure; mother permitted retrieval of guitar) and other undisputed facts supported lawfulness, so instruction not required | Court held no error: disputed consent to enter mother’s house was not material to admissibility because Murray did not prove he suffered a direct invasion of his own rights; alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Whether the court erred in denying a directed verdict based on illegal search/arrest | Murray argued Troglin’s warrantless entry and warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring acquittal | State argued directed verdict is not an available remedy for alleged illegal search/seizure; exclusionary rule is the remedy (suppression), and there was probable cause and statutory authority for warrantless seizure/arrest | Court held denial of directed verdict proper: no authority supports acquittal on those grounds; treated as sufficiency challenge and evidence (video, ID, recovery of guitar) was sufficient for conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (directed-verdict denial treated as sufficiency challenge)
- Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Article 38.23 exclusionary rule requires a defendant suffer direct injury to invoke remedy)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial, even if improperly admitted)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson standard in Texas sufficiency review)
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requirements for Article 38.23 jury instruction)