Timothy Scott Weeks v. State
396 S.W.3d 737
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Weeks was convicted of boating while intoxicated after a Texas Parks and Wildlife warden stopped his boat near Lake Conroe based on a call about intoxicated boaters.
- The warden conducted a safety check under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code § 31.124, observed Weeks’ intoxication indicators, and onshore conducted sobriety tests.
- Weeks moved to suppress arguing unlawful stop/detention and lack of probable cause, but no pretrial ruling existed; trial later overruling an objection to the warden’s testimony.
- The jury selection in Montgomery County used an internet-based e-juror system; Weeks challenged cross-section fairness due to alleged underrepresentation of low-income, Hispanic, and African-American groups.
- Weeks complained about a prosecutor’s closing argument referencing a hypothetical “Taxilyzer”; the trial court overruled the objection and Weeks appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the stop/ detention lawful, the arrest supported by probable cause, and the jury-selection issue not proven; there was no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stop/detention legality | Weeks argues lack of reasonable suspicion/ probable cause | State maintains stop/inspection authorized; evidence supports detention | No reversible error; stop valid under §31.124; reasonable suspicion supported |
| Preservation of suppression complaint | Weeks preserved via trial objection | No timely ruling; waiver | Waiver and, even if preserved, no error outstanding |
| Fair-cross-section jury selection | e-juror process excludes low-income, Hispanic, African-American groups | Record lacks sufficient evidence of systemic exclusion | Issue overruled; insufficient evidence of distinctive-group exclusion |
| Closing argument propriety | Prosecutor improperly attacked counsel via Taxilyzer hypothetical | Response to defense argument; within permissible scope | Issue overruled; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldrich v. State, 928 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (distinctive-group concept in fair-cross-section analysis)
- Feagins v. State, 142 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (evidence requirements for fair-cross-section claims)
- May v. State, 738 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (disproportionate panel does not prove systematic exclusion)
- Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (underrepresentation not necessarily systemic)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 447 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2006) (reliance on most accurate reflect of jury-eligible Hispanics)
- Schenekl v. State, 30 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (upheld stop-and-board authority for water safety checks)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (U.S. 2010) (fair-cross-section factors require causal showing)