Vincent Andrew Lopez v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12466
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Lopez was convicted by a jury of evading detention in Bexar County (Trial No. 2010CR1605).
- The State’s trial evidence showed Lopez fled after officers attempted a lawful stop; the defense argued lack of awareness.
- Lopez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intentional fleeing from a peace officer.
- The trial court’s voir dire included a comment describing the case as a state jail felony and related time framing.
- After verdict, the foreman dissented; the court poll questioned the jurors, and the defense objected; the court denied entering judgment on the initial verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional fleeing | Lopez argues insufficient evidence | State contends evidence shows intent to flee | Sufficient evidence supported guilt |
| Voir dire comment as fundamental error | Blue-derived fundamental error absent waiver | Comment ambiguous; no fundamental error; waiver based on lack of timely objection | Comment not fundamental error; not reversible; waived without timely objection |
| Polling the jury after dissent | Polling violated article 37.05; improper deliberation | Court had authority to poll; 37.04/37.05 interplay not reversible error | Poll not reversible error; judgment affirmed; conflict resolved under 37.04 |
Key Cases Cited
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reliability of inferences in sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence valid; multiple reasonable inferences permitted)
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (presumption of innocence concerns after voir dire comment (plaintiff argued))