State v. Johnson

ANDELL, COHEN, Before WILSON JJ.

OPINION ANDELL, Justice. interlocutory appeal brings this

The State granting court’s orders five from the trial pursu- suppress physical evidence motions 44.01(a)(5) art. ant to Tex.Code Crim.P.ANN. (Vernon Jay Johnson, Supp.1995). Appellee, capital the shoot- charged is with murder 1.in Prosen, com- alleged his ing death Edwina error, mon-law wife.2 Supp.1995.) gave alleges notice 1989 & that Johnson killed Pro- 1. The indictment penalty. death seek the intent proceeds, which raises sen for life insurance charge capital from murder to murder. Tex. into and Prosen had entered 2. Whether Johnson 19.02, 19.03(a)(3) (Vernon §§ Code Penal Ann. dispute. marriage is a matter common-law (8) State asserts the trial court in each hearse erred Officers searched the 1, order five warrant on October 1991. obtained searches. We affirm all or- five (4) evidence, received over Officers handed ders. decedent, sons of them the Fu- Sweeny three sons had taken from the operated jointly Prosen three-day period neral Home over the Sweeny They together Funeral Home. lived 2,1, October 1991. upstairs portion building in the housed funeral home. owned (5) searched Officers Funeral business, the funeral home and Prosen Home with warrant on October they owned the hearse used in business. granted The trial all the motions Early Sunday morning, September part.4 whole inor 1991, Sweeny Johnson called the Police De- [1,2] suppress, On motion to trial the partment reported and that had been Prosen may court is exclusive the finder of fact and police The promptly shot. arrived and any or of choose believe disbelieve or all searched the funeral home. Over the next Meek v. testimony. witness’s weeks, two-and-a-half police the conducted 618, (Tex.Crim.App.1990). S.W.2d The several more searches of the funeral home standard of review is abuse of discretion. complains the and hearse. Johnson that Id.; 1(6) 28.01, § Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. unlawful, search each that and the evi- (Vernon 1989). The standard of review is gained dence from each should have been the the trial same whether court denied the suppressed. agreed The trial court with suppress granted motion to the motion in large part, granted Johnson and most of suppress. This Court must all evi view the suppression his appeals motions. The State light dence in the most favorable to the suppress. five orders to one Each must be ruling. hold that To the trial court abused considered in turn. discretion, its we must determine that the complained of evidence obtained support finding evidence would not the following the searches: searches were unlawful. (1) Sweeny Officers searched the Funeral record findings contains no of The Home without day they warrant on the Therefore, fact or conclusions of law. this report shooting, Septem- received the of the presume Court must the trial court 29, ber 1991.3 found whatever facts were needed to (2) Officers Sep- ruling.5 inqui searched the hearse on its This would end the entire 30, 1991, without a warrant when ry tember the record the unless shows either of apprehended (1) they driving following: sup the that the evidence at the it, him, stopped pression hearing hearse Prosen’s support any would not rea custody, him into impounded finding took and the sonable that the un searches were (2) lawful; hearse. clearly the evidence and con- argument, stipulated sup- At several State its the relies certain items would not be upon shells, its pressed, contention that namely, shotgun, pillow, pil- no common-law mar- the decision, however, riage lowcases, existed. Our does not bedding &at obtained from depend upon a resolution of this issue. stipulаted specific the initial search. It also portions videotape premises of a of the would addition, 3. In officers searched Fu- suppressed. be evening neral Home with a warrant later in the day shooting, September 1991. suppression hearing, 5.At the trial court stat- gained warrant The was based on information granting ed its reasons for two mo- of the five day. the warrantless search earlier in the (those pertaining four tions motions to searches agreed suppression State of evidence ob- five). agreed suppress The State tained from this search. This and its search gained from the evidence warrant search of corresponding suppression part order are of evening Sep- home conducted on the funeral appeal. day shooting. tember n. See granted 4. The trial court of these 3. court did not the first mo- The trial state its reasons for part part. granting tions and denied it in That order the other three motions. illegal drugs possibility discussing the vincingly suppression was cers shows that errone- sup- premises. The trial court also on the as a matter of law. ous it portion where showed pressed the video sup- granted The trial court six motions to bedroom, opening of drawers separate, press, which were directed six stair- any portions outside the bedroom or related, appeal searches. This concerns Finally, suppressed way. the trial court reviewing of the six orders. In five premises during that taken from the items6 discretion, it is these five orders for abuse search, shotgun, other than warrantless necessary to and its differentiate each search bedding shells, pillowcases and pillows, corresponding analyze motion. We must trial Sergeant had removed. The Davis search, surrounding each separately facts sup- рortion of court denied the determine the trial court could whether shot- pression pertained motion that reasonably given have found that the shells, bedding. pillowcases, gun, pillow, was unlawful. If trial court could reason- court refused to these found, ably from the before items. hearing, given suppression at the unlawful, suppression then search was Analysis perform this proper. order was We must analysis five or- each one, asserts the error ders. suppressing the remain- trial court erred videotape beyond and der of the the bedroom search, to Each and its related motion stairs, along the other evidence seized suppress, chronologically, ac- will be taken the warrantless search. companied by points of corresponding the order, suppression error. the trial court its distinguished implicitly the evidence between plain and which that was view that 1: Search not, gave ruling. it no but rationale its September grounds urged the 29, 1991, We must look to the

day shooting; in his motion to evaluate whether the trial the of claimed abused its discretion. Johnson search of the funeral home search of the funeral the warrantless without a warrant. (Relevant one) 29, 1991, September home on violated the to (a) following: the to the fourth amendment 1. Facts Constitution; (b) United States the Texas (e) Constitution, 9; I, the article section and the Johnson called at 7:46 Texas Code Criminal Procedure. n .m. 29, 1991, Sunday, September and general rule that warrantless reported that Edwina Prosen had been shot. per searches are unreasonable se. Schneck Sergeant Davis arrived a few minutes When Bustamante, 218, 219, loth 412 93 v. U.S. later, Johnson met him at led the door and 2041, 2043, (1973); L.Ed.2d 854 S.Ct. 36 up him into the funeral home and the stairs (Tex. Fancher Sergeant to Prosen’s the bedroom. acknowledges Crim.App.1983). He thеn the Davis secured the scene and removed rule, exceptions urges that to this but shells, shotgun, pillow, pillowcases, and bed- fall within of the State’s actions do not ding. officers arrived later that morn- Other exceptions. scene, ing including the videotaped the and bedroom, leading stairs bedroom con argues had The State itself, building. portions of the and other exception to the rule sent. Consent is suppressed searches are unreasonable The trial court the entire audio warrantless Schneckloth, at per portion videotape, which offi- se. U.S. included policy nam a life insurance is clear about involved 6. Neither record nor briefs suppressed. exactly what rec ing beneficiary. evidence was Johnson as a indicates, however, ord that each instance Fancher, 2043-44; shells, shotgun, at S.Ct. 669 S.W.2d at there when he took the prove bedding, nothing 839. The State has the burden to and that Johnson said convincing consent clear and evidence. Sergeant him. Davis testified that all Fancher, 659 S.W.2d at Consent will be plain these items were in view the bed- totality determined from circum- room where Johnson led him. Johnson fact, findings stances. Id. Without we testify hearing, Sergeant did not at the presume must trial court made the sign Davis testified that Johnson refused to necessary findings ruling, p.m. consent at 11:50 to search form on the must light we review the evidence night killing. This refusal was some ruling. most favorable to the court’s 16 hours Sergeant after Davis had arrived in analysis This would end the unless the facts response to call and had conducted suppression hearing require that the the initial search. trial court find consent as a matter of law. Sergeant Davis testified that he re Sergeant Davis testified other officers ceived from verbal consent the decedent’s at the arrived scene with vidеo camera and mother, Reuter, Mrs. who also lived on the bedroom, videotaped stairway, premises, you take what “do and have to.” the other rooms of house. The State’s upstairs Mrs. Reuter lived where Johnson premises consent to search the persons and Prosen lived. Third who have (1) Sergeant on two rests bases: Davis’ testi- equal premises control over and use of the mony about communications Johnson to being authority searched have to consent himself; (2) police dispatcher and to Fancher, the search. 659 S.W.2d at 839. mother, communications from the decedent’s Mrs. later Reuter testified but neither the Reuter, Sergeant Mrs. Davis. State nor defense counsel asked her if she Sergeant Davis testified he received a assume, consented to the we search. with reported shooting call that a been at had the concluding, out Reuter that Mrs. had authori proceeded He Funeral Home. im- ty prem to consent to a of the search entire home, mediately to the funeral where he met ises, question is then the whether her words him Johnson. Johnson invited in and led Sergeant actually conveyed to Davis such up living him the stairs to area the and into consent.

the bedroom where Edwina Prosen’s lay Sergeant across the bed. Davis saw a suppression hearing, In a the trial shotgun leaning against the bed. Johnson fact, may court is the sole finder and it Sergeant dropped told Davis he that the any choose to believe disbelieve or or all shotgun accidentally. and it fired Johnson Meek, the witnesses. S.W.2d at 620. Sergeant help get asked Davis him to Prosen Mrs. Reuter at the testified the get onto backboard of the bed so he could hearing, this but not on issue. The trial her down the stairs into the and hearse to court could have chosen to disbelieve Ser hospital. Sergeant her to take the Davis told geant testimony Davis’s that he received ver was, everything to as it Johnson leave and he bal consent from Mrs. Reuter. Or the trial for an called ambulance. court could have concluded her consent

Sergeant began beyond Davis testified he in- did not extend the bedroom into vestigating “possible building. a homicide” but he ac- other areas of the On the other hand, knowledged it might reasonably have been an acci- the trial could have that, shooting. dental He testified that if John- believed while Mrs. Reuter intended to story shotgun give Sergeant son’s was correct that the fired her consent to Davis search accidentally, shotgun premises, actually then he believed the the entire she had no au presented danger anyone thority a to himself and to to consent to such an extensive might ways else who into the room. search. come He There are several which the reasonably shotgun could see that contained more trial court could have found or shotgun shells. He Sergeant seized the secured it concluded that Davis did not have addition, patrol explicit in the trunk of car. In premis his consent to the entire search Sergeant Davis testified Johnson was es. consent, consent, must consent to search be explicit

Even without authority explicit.7 to has the in some instances State under the immediate of a crime search area situation, however, this when implied adopted consent doctrine shooting, police of the notified the (Tex.

Brown S.W.2d report it as a crime committed he did not as Crim.App.1998), in which the court held shooting person, as an accidental a third follows: Hence, his own hands. occurred a is hold that when crime We therefore perpetrator to person nо third there was police by who reported individual implied identify, rule of con Brown premises to or controls the which owns go in the first into effect sent could summoned, police are and that individual investigate The could not instance. suggests com- either states or that was suspected they as a crime scene unless person, implic- a third she mitted lying na about accidental Johnson was premises of the itly consents to search shooting. police thought ture investiga- reasonably related the routine this, suspect from the then and the identification tion offense outset, prohibit, rule would and the Brown long perpetrator. As as individual implied permit, any finding of rather than nothing suspect in the is not case does be limited consent. Id. searches would consent, police may revoke his IV; Tex. art. by U.S. Const. amend. Const. premises purposes, these search for 9; I, § art. 1.06 and Tex.Code CRIM.P.Ann. thereby is and evidence obtained admissi- 1977). (Vernon implied This is ble. consent valid investigation initial at the conducted Conclusion carry and does not over to future scene argues that consent is evident

visits to the scene. (1) following: call to the from the Johnson’s (2) added.) leading Sergeant act of (Emphasis police; Johnson’s up into the bedroom Davis the stairs and requires follow- The rule Brown (3) Sergeant testimo- body; Prosen’s Davis’s ing implied three factors be satisfied before gave him her verbal ny that Mrs. Reuter premises goes into consent you and take whatever consent to “do (1) person reports effect: “a crime” to the (4) object to”; failure to (2) police; reported the must the crime be on shotgun, Sergeant Davis’s removal the (8) reporting person’s premises; re- and the shells, bedding. pillow, pillowcases, and Evi- porting person suggests “either or states clear and convinс- dence of consent must be ” person.... that it was committed a third Fancher, at The trial ing. 839. satisfied, Id. three are Once these factors the evidence court could have found If police implied consent search. hearing did not it in the before satisfied, not one of these factors is convincing and evidence of constitute clear implied consent does arise. not facility. the entire consent to search arisen, have found from the implied has The trial court could After consent (1) totality of the circumstances that consent may means: cease either two plain that were reporting a sus limited to items person the crime becomes (2) Sergeant Davis into id.; led pect, person reporting view when Johnson bedroom, nor and that neither Johnson action revoke his con crime takes some to search person reporting the Reuter had consented Id. Once the Mrs. sent. premises. trial court found suspect, state entire federal and crime becomes con- implied conducted the search without the State constitutions override the doctrine crime, implied premise reported the implied con- owner 7. The Brown court indicated investiga- suspect acquires full con- and the consent ceases to search is limited "the routine sent interpretation is protection. con- This and stitutional tion of offense the identification of long (emphasis phrase: the individu- "As as perpetrator." S.W.2d add- sistent with at ed). suspect_” Id. perpetrator as the al is Once the is identified (whether express sent implied), it, getting then the Johnson was out of but he did not State has failed to show that its actions were search the hearse.

within exception general to the rule Deputy talking While Cisneros was against Therefore, warrаntless searches. Johnson, hearse, standing at the back of the beyond search the stairs and bedroom was up, ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍two more law enforcement officers drove unreasonable violation of both the Deputy Anderson and Lieutenant Jeff Gillen- United States and Texas Constitutions. Deputy waters. Cisneros testified that Lieu- Fancher, 659 S.W.2d at 839. talking tenant Gillenwaters was to someone phone, got on his ear then out and instructed We find the trial court did not abuse place him custody “to Mr. for in suppressing videotape discretion investigative through Sweeny hold Police De- showing investigation beyond the bedroom partment. And for—for the theft of this and stairs. We also find that the trial court time, corpse.” Anderson, Deputy At that did not abuse in suppressing its discretion County also of the Brazoria depart- sheriffs any other pursuant evidence obtained to the ment, arrested transported Johnson and him day warrantless search on the of the shoot- jail. county to the ing. Deputy Cisneros drove the hearse to the point We overrule the State’s of error one. department patrol sheriffs office. While he hearse, cursory

was in the he made a visual interior, search of the and he saw Prosen’s Search 2: body lying in the back of the hearse. He did September 30, 1991; open glove compartment at this time. hearse without a warrant. When Cisneros delivered the hearse (Relevant points two, of error station, they in- conducted an five) three, four, and search, ventory yielded, among which other things, papers.” “some life insurance 1. Facts granted sup- motion press gained inventory the evidence in this After pronounced Edwina Prosen was search. Sweeny dead Community Hospital, her County was taken to the Harris Medi- Analysis cal autopsy. Examiner for an When work, medical completed examiner his her two, three, four, five, In of error body was sent to Embalming Escort Service asserts the warrantless 30, 1991, embalming. September On search of September the hearse on Service, Johnson went to Embalming Escort two, legal. the State body, took put Prosen’s it in the hearse alleges standing challenge has no that he and Prosen had used for the three, four, the search. Points error Funeral Home business. The title of the five contend the search was lawful. name, hearse was in Prosen’s and Johnson For the State to obtain a reversal of this

was a named insured on the hearse auto order, suppression it must show all three of policy. (1) following: stop and arrest were (2) three); (point lawful of error the invento- Highway Angle- Johnson was on in 288-B ry search inwas accordance with the United ton, driving containing the hearse Prosen’s four); (point States Constitution of error and body, Deputy when David Cisneros of the (3) search was in accordance County Brazoria department sheriffs re- with the Texas Constitution and the Texas ceived a call to look in for Johnson the hearse of (point Code Criminal Procedure of error transporting body. Deputy a Cisneros saw five). highway stopped Johnson on the him. Deputy getting five, Cisneros testified that it was point In of error the State asserts (at p.m.), dark 7:12 he used his impoundment “the arrest and the are flashlight glance inside the hearse as lawful.” The State did not obtain evi-

285 ap- that the prior Crim.App.1987), the Court held stop dence a result of the as priva- of pellant expectation in the in- a arrest. It obtained evidence had reasonable ventory in, standing search that followed arrest. cy consequent contest Thus, controlling issue is whether the of, of taxicab which the interior arrest lawful. was passenger. he awas two, point In error the State оf have found that The trial court could standing has no to contest asserts Johnson expectation pri of had a reasonable Johnson hearse be the search of hearse. The hearse, despite vacy in the Edwina Prosen’s Prosen, longed to not to Johnson. Johnson’s day, despite the previous death the depends upon a right fourth amendment sub disposition of estate. pending Prosen’s jective expectation privacy society is of expectation ques is reasonableness of recognize prepared to as reasonable. Smith of fact. At a tion for the finder 735, 740, Maryland, 442 99 S.Ct. v. U.S. Meek, 790 hearing, that is the trial court. 2577, (1979). 2580, 220 61 L.Ed.2d Johnson at 620. S.W.2d At of did not own the hearse. the time title, stop, the hearse’s owner of Edwina The State raises the issue stand Prosen, recently deceased. The State appeal. In the ing time on for first argues title at her to the hearse vested findings of fact and conclusions absence of heirs, legal be death in her which would her law, the trial court we must assume that three children. Tex. Probate Code Ann. necessary rul facts to found (Vernon 3, Supp.1995).8 §§ & 1980 law, however, question ing. Standing, is a title, Prosen, give owner of Edwina could by the which reviewed de novo should be Johnson consent to drive the after she hearse Following analysis appellate court. produced no was deceased. And Johnson above, hold had a reason we that Johnson he evidence that had received consent from subjective expectation privacy in the able Thus, the Prosen heirs to drive the hearse. hearse, and, therefore, standing to contest the State contends that could not Johnson the search. expectation privacy have held reasonable in the hearse. point overrule of error two. We did, however, own the business holding standing has After that Johnson namely, Sweeny which the hearse was used— search, we must now review contest Funeral Home.9 He was named insured on surrounding itself to deter- the search facts policy, the hearse insurance which would have the trial court could mine whether suggest expect- that the owner of the hearse If the found that the search unlawful. ed Johnson to drive it. Non-owner occu- trial court had no evidence before it pants may standing to con of vehicles reasonably which it could conclude that In test searches some situations. Wilson unlawful, then its dis- search was it abused (Tex.Crim.App. v. suppressing the evidence. cretion 1984), appellant Court held that the had a three, In the State asserts in, expectation privacy and con reasonable evi- suppressing the trial court erred of, sequent standing to contest the search dence because it reasonable had automobile borrowed. light facts Bassano, Cisneros (Tex.App. S.W.2d Deputy Cisneros at the time. We ref'd), known to —Corpus pet. the court Christi whether the evidence before standing must determine held that the defendant con- a reasonable in the trial would test his wife’s vehicle. And (Tex. stop Chapa finding was unlawful. conclusion, oper- depends was a licensed funeral home 8. To the State 9. reach ator; upon disputed premise that Johnson and Pro- was. Edwina Prosen sen riage. into a common-law mar- entered above, we not resolve this As noted need issue determine whether the trial court abused suppressing its discretion the evidence. Deputy Cisneros testified that he received A Myself We waited. and Mr. Anderson a call that transporting Johnson, Johnson was a “sto- waited with Mr. back of the body” len in the hearse. This would abe Cadillac hearse. And until lieutenant stop. sufficient basis for a finally reasonable On got come out of his car. He cross-examination, however, Deputy through Cisneros talking phone. on the He. report conceded that nothing his said about place was —we were then told to Mr. dispatcher informing him that the hearse custody investigative Johnson in hold transporting body illegally, simply through Sweeny Department. Police “transporting body.” The trial court could And corpse. for —for the theft of this have believed that the Dep- information that Q corpse? For the theft of the uty Cisneros stopped had at the time he Right. A hearse was stop insufficient to make the rea- So, Q Okay. right. All that was Jeff found, sonable. the trial court so then it telling you things, Gillenwaters those was within suppress its discretion any deputy? evidence obtained as a result. A Yes. No evidence was obtained as a result of Q And he is depart- with the Sheriffs itself, however, because neither ment? Deputy any Cisneros nor other officer searched the immediately following hearse Yes, A sir. He was at the time. stop. The search followed the arrest. Q investigator Is with the Sheriffs Therefore, this Court must consider whether Department at the time? the arrest was valid. legally The State can my patrol A He was lieutenant. pursuant conduct a search to a lawful arrest. Q Now, Patrol lieutenant? after —after If the record shows that the arrest was law- you were advised Jeff Gillenwaters to ful, then the evidence obtained as a result place him custody, you what did do? lawful, thereof was and the trial court abused Anderson, A I suppressing Deputy its discretion in assisted Mr. it. On the other hand, placing if the trial Anderson in reasonably court could the —Mr. Johnson unlawful, custody. found that placed the arrest He was then it searched and patrol was within back of the its discretion to car.

evidence оbtained as a result. Q right. All Was he handcuffed?

Deputy Cisneros testified that Dep- he and A I don’t recollect. uty Anderson arrested Johnson on Lt. Gillen- Q You don’t recollect? waters’ orders. Neither Anderson recollect, A I don’t because I didn’t actu- nor Lt. suppres- Gillenwaters testified at the ally handcuff him. Mr. Anderson did. hearing. only testimony sion concerning put And Mr. Anderson him in back of the basis for Johnson’s arrest came from patrol his car. Deputy Cisneros on cross-examination: Then, lieutenant, my patrol

A Jeff Gillen- Q Okay. you type Do know what of of- waters, up. showed And he was —I corpse fense theft of a is under the talking don’t know who he was to on his Penal Code? phone, car talking but he was to some- No, A phone. time, really on sir. I’m not his car At that familiar with it. nothing really happened couple for a Q you why you Can tell me filled out a minutes. report misdemeanor miscellaneous Q going during What was that time. connection with this incident?

Nothing? Nobody was— Why? A just A standing Yeah. We were around. Yes, Q sir. Q Nobody looking in the vehicle? A pertaining Because it wasn’t to our A No. No. Not at that time. department. pertaining It was Q Okay. Sweeny Department. Police him. stopped I the reason Well, miscel- A That was you use misdemeanor Q do illegally or he had That he was—that that arise reports laneous for incidents from Hous- unlawfully a obtained departments? out of other in route here with back over ton was Yes, we A do. my presumption. That it. was Well, arising other Q out of the what was sorry. I I’m MR. STANSBERRY: mur- allegation department was responsive. It’s a object. still not It’s der; Investigative isn’t that correct? yes question. no for hold murder? Well, going I’m THE COURT: No, called dis- A sir. From the —I now, may it, as it You stands. overrule going patch, told me was and she what like, no, your yes you’d if pursue I Sweeny, in that he was—from what on though. got out was of that conversation probable didn’t Q Yes оr no. You have know, was, you the —this incident whole cause? police de- occurring from another was partment. from us. Not I I did. A Yes. believe in- Q regarding that. probable I understand But cause? Q you You felt vestigative of mur- hold for offense sir, Yes, A I did. der, right? Q probable cause? What was Right. A probable cause due to A The was Q corpse, there was a theft a Sweeny, investigation impending your something that occurred I the information that and from —and there; presence, you because I I thought And got. That. Yes. you corpse possession, saw his right stopping that car. correct? Well, you any Q have details didn’t got Right. they A know I don’t where you. Sweeny, did information out of information, but what their that was coming from You have details didn’t was told. time, you? did at that say Q you fair to have Would it be didn’t run- just gave They A No. me a brief any probable cause at the time to happened over there. down what of a and arrest Mr. Johnson for theft added.) (Emphasis corpse, you? did “totality of circum of a corpse. A For the theft determining proba applies test for stances” Yes, A sir? v. for arrests. ble cause warrantless Hafford got phone From that I A the time (Tex.App. —Fort call, know, sir, you yes, I had denied, ref'd), pet. cert. had — Worth Hafford — possibly that he reason believe Texas, U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. body. possession corpse or a (1993). did Deputy Cisneros L.Ed.2d 700 suspi- for testify stopped Johnson that he Q Well not— that’s only that he He testified cion of murder. dispatch A From what was told illegally transporting stopped office. body. testimony was then undermined His coun- [defense MR. STANSBERRY acknowledged report his when object your response, I’ll sel]: “transporting dispatcher said stated that the Honor. transpor- indicating body” without THE Sustained. COURT: The trial of the law. tation was violation Cisneros, to find my question at within its discretion Q is that court was Officer unreasonablе, the offi- stop was and that you had out the time that Mr. Johnson roadside, probable cause arrest John- you had no did not cers there found, it acted If the court so arrest him for theft son. probable cause to granting the motion corpse, you? within discretion did suppress all the evidence obtained from the of the hearse. He claims that such informa- inventory search of the poisonous hearse. tion is the “fruit of the tree.” The poisonous “fruit of the tree” doctrine does point We overrule of error three. apply knowledge possession when By three, overruling point of error hold we question is obtained from a that the trial court did abuse its discre- independent government’s source in suppressing tion the evidence obtained wrongful Autry act. inventory the warrantless search of the 758, denied, (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. points hearse. State’s of error four and five U.S. 103 S.Ct. 74 L.Ed.2d 147 allege inventory that the search was lawful (1982). under the United States and Texas constitu- specifically stipulated The warrant inventory tions. The search could not be purpose of the search towas seize if illegal constitutional it followed an arrest. policies. life alleged insurance The State Because we hold that the trial court could (from inventory that the warrantless search unlawful, have found the arrest to be preceding day) indicated that the vehicle arguments State’s constitutional must fail. contained policies. such life insurance The points We overrule of error four and five. alleged suspecting no other basis for that the hearse contained the life insurance 3. Conclusion policies. previous day’s provided The upon the information which the warrant was To points summarize relating of error based. The other assertions the warrant to the warrаntless search of the hearse provide legal do not searching basis for (Search 2), the trial court could have found hearse. The State conceded that the war and arrest were unlawful. rant search of the hearse was a moot issue Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion suppressed after trial inventory suppress the evidence obtained from the search. inventory search of the hearse. two, points three, We overrule of error 3.Conclusion four, and five. testimony allows the trial court conclude that the warrant search of the Search 3: hearse violated Johnson’s constitutional 1, 1991; October search of the rights. Although the trial court made no hearse with a warrant. explicit end, finding presume to this we must (Relevant 6) to Point of Error findings court made whatever necessary ruling. 1. Facts suppress- court did not abuse its discretion in Following search of the ing the evidence obtained from the warrant hearse, the officers obtained a warrant search of the hearse. search the day, hearse. The next October We overrule of error six. 1991, they again, searched it this time with a granted warrant. The trial court Search 4: motion to the evidence obtained 1-3, 1991; October this search. passively received, Police family, the Prosen Analysis property family the Prosen provided The affidavit that the basis took from the funeral home. for the warrant asserted that life insurance (Relevant seven, policies hearse, were in the and that these 11) eight, nine, 10, and tending constituted evidence to show that 1. Facts argues Johnson committed murder. Johnson 3, 1991, through information in this affidavit was On October 1 all October obtained the unlawful warrantless search three sons of the decedent entered the Swee- burglary subject the of belong- items that were the ny Funeral Home and items removed (2) complaint; turned over boxes family members: their the Prosens ing to three of their documents, that mother; grandmoth- containing their thousands of deceased maternal (Mrs. Reuter); Prosen, eight file equivalent of and the fill “the or er Jeff would (3) drawers”; duty youngest the three Prosen sons. The considered it the and he mother, Reuter, Mary Mrs. had in- department photograph, decedent’s the police years. funeral for three ventory, lived the home list all of the items that were and grandson shooting, After the she her asked to them in connection with turned over from Robert Prosen to remove her items burglary charge. brother, youngest The Jeff

funeral home. burglary presented the com- police Prosen, lived funeral had also at the home plaint grand jury, did not return to the which years, he had married and moved out against the Prosens. The an indictment 1991, August in the month the shoot- before all the granted the motion ing, taking belongings. all without of his fu- took from the evidence that Prosens among Robert Prosen testified that Sweeny neral and delivered home they removed some insurance items were Department. Police policies on He on the decedent. admitted they that had re- cross-examination also Analysis belonging to moved some documents John- 11, through In points of error seven He at- son. further testified that Johnson’s the trial court erred State asserts Johnson, torney, present on the Dean Pro- suppressing the evidence taken premises of the funeral home on October the police sen de- brothers delivered removing while the sons were items alleged partment. suppression motion mother, belonging grandmoth- to their their the search violated Tex.Code Ckxm. er, son, youngest Prosen. Rob- Jeff 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.1995), art. P.Ann. ert Prosen testified he had several con- provides: ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍which Dean about versations with Johnson owner- (a) obtained an officer No evidence ship they of some of the items were remov- any provi- person or in violation other ing. they disputed He left the testified of the sions of the Constitution laws hallway photographed items in them Texas, or of the Constitution or State of permission. with Dean Johnson’s Dean America, laws of the shall States only Johnson was there one of the three United against be the ac- admitted evidence days removing that the Prosen brothers were any case. on the trial of criminal cused property from the home. funeral legal In case where After the Prosen brothers removed the hereunder, jury issue shall be raises an items, Johnson, attorney, Dean believes, if a rea- instructed that it has complaint burglary against filed a them. doubt, ob- that the evidence was sonable Murphy Police Chief testified that provisions of this in violation of the tained complaint alleged Dean Johnson’s event, Article, jury then and in such “[tjhere missing, items that had been disregard any shall such evidence so ob- before, day pic- there when he took the tained. tures.” added.) (Emphasis

Robert that when he be- Prosen testified came aware that Dean Johnson had filed the argues that when the Pro- burglary complaint, he to return all offered they sen took the evidence that brothers evening. the items to Dean Johnson that He police, they did so later turned over “requested it not testified that Dean Johnson of the At the violation law. So, gave him. be returned to we found hearing, this contention some police.” Murphy testimony that Dean Chief (1) burglary complaint filed Murphy that: Dean

Chief testified taking Johnson, against attorney, suggested to the Prosens for items appellant’s custody thought had been thеre of the the office that him that the maintain brothers, addition, day they before. In Prosen Robert tes- Prosen because are not within they tified that entered the home on meaning person” funeral term “other days, three consecutive but he testified provision. the first of the code sentence during presence to Dean Johnson’s one of nine, 10, eight, Points of error rest days. three also those Robert Prosen testi- upon our determination this issue among they took fied documents eight of error seven. of error from the funeral of John- home were some nine, police depart- the State asserts that the personal papers. son’s inventory ment’s accordance the with testimony From the collective before it at and Texas It United States Constitutions. suppression hearing, despite the the unnecessary will to be address the constitu- jury’s indictment, grand failure to issue an tionality inventory of the search if code the trial the court could have found that the provision apply not tak- does to the evidence Although illegally. was seized evidence by In en the Prosens. of error 10 fact, findings trial made no formal of 11, asserts that the State suppressing its reason for stated evi- accordance the United States po- dence that the Prosens to the delivered police Texas Constitutions because the It lice. found that the items were seized Dean consent to prop- Johnson’s review the unlawfully: erty. all, right. THE COURT: All First of speak suppress want to to the to motion question motion in here The by evidence seized of the Pro- members single alleged only ground: evi- that the family: entry by sen While the members illegally dence was “obtained and in violation Sweeny family the Prosen into 38.28(a) of Article of the Texas Code of Crim- may questionable, Funeral Home be inal Proсedure.” The motion does not claim entry very op- could well lawful as be police that violated either the United unlawful, posed to the evi- upon based receiving States or Texas Constitutions in dence before the Court. But it’s clear to provision The the evidence. code itself incor- that me the seizure of Mr. Johnson’s porates they apply both constitutions as to opposed property as to that of the de- obtaining the act evidence. the evi- mother, ceased the deceased’ [sic] and/or “by dence was obtained an officer or other proper. lawful or person” in of the violation federal or state laws, constitutions other federal or state therefore, And I don’t from the know against then that evidence cannot be used evidence, what’s Mr. Johnson’s and what argues the accused. Johnson that the viola- belongs to the estate of Mrs. Prosen or alleged entry illegal tion was the Prosens’ belongs to the of the de-

what mother burglary. alleged and the He does not con- ceased. And it would seem to me that illegal police depart- tend that it was for the up it’s the State’s burden to clear evidence, ment to receive the but he does me, for but it’s clear some to me that argue illegal it was use to items that were there in they as did. evidence room, Department, Police in that were Mr. Johnson’s and were seized unlaw- argues that the term “oth fully. person” apply in the er statute should therefore, going grant And I’m agents government, not to all natural motion to seized the items persons generally. says The State in its family. members of the Prosen brief, is a impression “This case of first added.) (Emphasis Court of Appeals because the Criminal has expressly never ruled on this This issue.” court acted within its discretion previously Court construed this seven, has statute finding. In this however, apply private persons. argues the State the statute Weaver v. apply (Tex.App. does to the evidence taken 498 [1st S.W.2d — Houston Schneckloth, d).10 Weaver, however, at per sonable se. U.S. pet. ref' Dist.] Fancher, 2043; at 839. upon the did not turn construction S.Ct. provision findings on other of fact or conclu code and was decided In the absence us, law, presume on the con grounds.11 The case before this Court must sions of upon trary, findings does the construction of this turn the trial court made whatever provision. rulings. hold the term “oth necessary code We person” in Tex.Code art. er Crim.P.Ann. testified, about Dean but not 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.1995), private includes police reviewing whether he consented agents of the persons and is not limited to Prosens delivered the evidence government. light of verbal them. the trial court’s case, present In the trial court found unlawfully seized finding that Prosens taking that the violated the law Prosens evidence, consequent ruling that and its property the funeral home. was obtained violation prevents property, The statute even 38.23(a), moot. the consent issue is Article by persons, being though private taken exception the is an to constitutional Consent against Id. used evidence Johnson. protections against unreasonable searches by government. the and seizures Schneck point overrule of error seven. We (1973); loth, 219, at 412 at 93 2043 U.S. S.Ct. nine, points eight the In of error and State Fancher, 659 S.W.2d at 839. As discussed inventory that its search was in ac- asserts above, provision goes beyond this the code Texas con- cord with the United States and protection to ac- constitutional and extends contentions, however, do stitutions. These Weaver, 721 by private persons. tions ground address the mo- upon the which illegality of the Prosens’ S.W.2d at 498. namely, granted, the tion was that evidence argument the preempts act the State’s 38.23(a). in violation Article was obtained police had consent to review the evidence not assert the Johnson did evidence by To delivered the Prosens. hold otherwise inventory suppressed should be because the subjected a to person would mean that a search violated either the United States by person wrongful private could seizure ap- motion Texas Constitutions. Johnson’s up giving the complain police to without pears allegedly to addressed the have rights Article de- very the 38.23 was illegal actions of the brothers. The Prosen signed protect. only grounds upon which the specified be in the could ordered those points 11. of error 10 and We overrule Therefore, points eight motion. of error and inapposite. nine are 3. Conclusion points eight and nine. We overrule error court not abuse its discretion did belonging points finding In that the items to John- of error and son, by the Prosen broth- claims had the consent of which were seized Johnson, police, attorney, to ers delivered were obtained Dean review and such, unlawfully. they were inadmissible property that As Prosens delivered trial, gener- proper it was for the trial court exception is an at them. Consent are the evidence. al rule warrantless searches unrea- however, taken, evidence, employees hospital “[I]llegally pro- obtained obtained whether 10. by private by police officers, sample any police cured in- individuals or without second blood strictly pro- in Texas criminal is ceedings, inadmissible samples Both blood were admitted volvement. provides our Code thus broader Id. 497. We held that into evidence. at сomparable protection Fourth Amend- than hospital sample employ- second blood taken added.) (Emphasis ment.” rights and ees not violate a DWI defendant’s did that, in We concluded was admissible evidence. Weaver, police 11. In officer obtained blood admissibility blood view second sample sent, without con- from a DWI defendant his sample taking sample, error in the first blood arrest, was not under in the when he We Id. at 498. affirmed harmless. exigent that would absence of circumstances Id. at conviction. 500. supported a search. warrantless Shortly sample this blood S.W.2d after seven, points eight, me, We overrule of error inability upon based nine, 10, me, and 11. to discern whether or before Wingo, drawing affidavit, not Mr. his say used items that I that were obtained Search 5: unlawfully unlawfully, going seized I’m October 1991: grant suppress Wingo the motion to search of the funeral home warrant. with a warrant (Relevant 13) error added.) (Emphasis the State claims that 1. Facts standing Johnson had no to contest Department While the Police con- 16, 1991, search and seizure on October be- ducted its search of the items de- conveyed cause he had the funeral home two Prosens, investigator livered Matt days attorney, earlier to his Dean Johnson. Wingo, County from the Brazoria district jail Johnson was in at the time of the search. office, attorney’s investigated also the evi- longer Johnson no occupied owned nor Following dence. investigation, his Matt premises. The State concludes Wingo prepared an affidavit that became the standing had no to contest the search of a basis for a search warrant for the funeral place he neither occupied. owned nor home. He conducted this warrant search on standing Johnson had no to contest 16,1991. October The triаl suppressed search, then the trial court in granting erred the evidence obtained this warrant search. suppression behalf, motion his if even the search was unlawful. Analysis 2. Standing to contest a search de The motion to the evidence seized pends upon whether the defendant has a (Wingo) in the warrant search of reasonable, subjective expectation privacy. of 16, 1991, Funeral urged Home on October 735, 740, Maryland, Smith v. 442 U.S. 99 that the evidence was obtained in violation of 2577, 2580, (1979). S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 220 The the constitutions of the United States and analysis earlier of the warrantless search of Texas and of the Code of Criminal Proce- applies the hearse also here. Johnson’s at dure. The trial court suppression based its torney, Johnson, Dean who new own finding order on its verbal Investigator that home, er of title to the funeral testified that

Wingo may unlawfully have viewed obtained he allowed using Johnson to resume the fu prepare items to his warrant affidavit: upon neral home as his residence his release [THE my COURT:] cannot discern in jail 21, 1991, days from on October five after mind, only own if he proper- reviewed that the warrant search. The trial court could ty taken, that was unlawfully; seized or reasonable, have found that Johnson had a property did he view the that was seized subjective expectation privacy despite of lawfully, which property would’ve been the conveyed fact that premises he had belonged to the estate of Mrs. Prosen occupying jail cell at the time. or the mother of Mrs. Prosen. And Offi- found, trial court suppression so Wingo’s Investigator Wingo’s cer testi- proper. — mony reviewing is that after the video and point We overrule of error 12. photographs some and some documents or document, he used some of that to obtain the State as cause, probable affidavit, as set forth in his serts the trial court erred because the war Wingo to obtain the warrant. And that (as rant was valid. The trial court found greatly. concerns me verbally) indicated might the warrant

As to the other matters for which coun- part upon unlawfully- have been based in argued sel for Mr. Johnson I think there obtained evidence. The trial court was with Meek, are merit with some of them and not merit in its discretion to find this. 790 with others. But the concern that I have Suppression proper S.W.2d at -620. is the

293 ruled, for a different reason than Justice remedy for viola is obtained Andell. rights of of an accused. Wade v. tion

State, (Tex.App. 764 S.W.2d agree —Waco anal- much of Justice Wilson’s 1991). testi- ysis points. of Cisneros’ these mony, Mur- as it was Chief corroborated point of 13. overrule error

We Prosen, provides ample phy Robert it probable cause arrest —if evidence of 3. Conclusion by the fact. There is trier of was believed reasonably have trial could could found judge have one reason subjec- had a reasonable found arrest, probable and that is no cause expectation privacy in the funeral tive more of three he did believe one or these would, therefore, standing He home. may judge, If I the trial witnesses. were trial court could contest the search. The conclusion, as Jus- have reached different reasonably have found that the warrant was But I plainly tice would have done. Wilson part upon unlawfully obtained evi- based ground cannot on this without vote reverse dence. credibility my opinion substituting judge. these that of trial overrule and 13. witnesses We error court is the exclusive finder of summarize, error, in 13 points To thus, suppression hearing, it fact in a sup- has from appealed five orders any may choose to believe or believe found, press The trial court from evidence. testimony. any all of witness’s Meeks v. suppression the evidence before at the (Tex.Crim.App. hearing, searches unlawful. 1990). powerful legal principle, as This is a finder, As the exclusive fact the court could It fact shows. means trier of case any believe disbelieve or all of testimo- any may including rela disbelieve Meek, witness— ny witness. S.W.2d unimpeached po tives of crime victims and Accordingly, we see no abuse of discre- course, applies, This lice officers. rule in the findings, tion court’s lawyers. and defense See Messer defendants remedy. proper was the hold that We John- State, 820, (TexApp.— v. 828 757 S.W.2d subjective expectation had a son reasonable ref'd) 1988, pet. (op. on Dist.] [1st Houston privacy of the and the both hearse funeral (trial appellant’s reh’g) judge not mtn. for did and, therefore, standing home to contest each attorney’s unim- have to believe defense of the searches. We hold that Tex. further testimony peached, regarding corroborated 38.23(a) (Vernon art. Code Crim.ProcAnn. client). her statements Supp.1995) applies private per- of actions all judge may sons. We overrule 13 of error. The trial have considered testimony from Lt. Gillenwaters absence of affirm We all five orders to evi- may important. it im- He have considered dence. nobody portant from the Escort Em- that Jay balming testified that Service COHEN, J., concurring opinion. files a body by without took decedent’s force WILSON, J., dissenting opinion. a files no Escort consent and that evidence showed Service, Embalming agents have whose must Justice, COHEN, concurring. that been victims and witnesses to my agree colleagues that the trial with crime, reported po- an ever such incident judge in ordering did not err lice. appel- in “search 1” and that what seized may such an judge The have doubted that standing to complain lee had about appel- event occurred thus believed Thus, points the hearse. for oc lee arrested a crime never properly one and are overruled. two State, curred. See Vicknair v. 670 S.W.2d 286, (TexApp. through [1st Dist.] three five Points of error deal 287 — Houston (Tex. 180, 1984), inventory aff'd, search of the 187-88 warrantless (Police (op. reh’g). offi- agree they Crim.App.1986) be hearse. should over- 294 good appellee

eer’s faith mistaken belief that crime there was no consent here because justify has occurred does not arrest where never Prosens’ consented to the seizure. occurred). not, fact, judge crime has probably Article 38.23 is broadest ex- may have Cisneros’ believed testimo- clusionary country, it rule in the has (set ny dissenting opinion) out in 1925, years Mapp existed since before dispatch body being a received a about trans- Ohio, 643, 1684, 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d ported, testimony instead of earlier Cisneros’ (1961). prohibits It the use in a crimi- by about having a been taken force and illegally nal trial of evidence seized a without consent. Here, private person. judge found that reporting witnesses to private persons illegal- the evidence obtained event, Murphy, Robert Prosen Chief ly- nor neither neutral disinterested. purpose having is What statute may While we the cold record of find their apply private person? like art. 38.23 It believable, testimony compelling, even private person could keep be to from escape cannot judge the fact a trial doing government what the cannot do and to daily deciding earns his bread whom to keep government benefitting from believe, believe and not we have little private illegality. The State cannot use authority guess credibility to second those acquired by burglary evidence means of me, least, choices. To that is what the theft; therefore, the should not be able hundreds of like Meek cases and Messer indirectly directly, to do it what cannot do really mean. i.e., provided by private to use Finally, proper, even if arrest was person by burglary acquired who or theft. inventory warrantless search of a closed con platter” This is similar “silver doctrine. tainer in a vehicle has been held to violate formerly That doctrine allowed state authori- I, § art. of 9 of Constitution. the Texas Au ties, governed by who were then (Tex. tran v. 41-42 S.W.2d rule, exclusionary illegally to obtain evidence Crim.App.1994). judge’s ruling The trial and deliver it to federal authorities use Autran, preceded may anticipated but prosecutions, long federal so as the federal exactly it. It is unclear what evidence was agents illegal did participate seized from what location simply illegally search but received the search, proving legality the burden platter.” seized evidence on a “silver This of a warrantless search is on the State. nationally doctrine was abolished Elkins v. States,

Under this and for all United record ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍of these 364 U.S. 80 S.Ct. reasons, (1960). I am not convinced that the trial L.Ed.2d 1669 Article 38.23 abolished Thus, judge abused his discretion. I concur decades earlier in Texas. We should not points in the decision to overrule of error reinstate it here. through

three five. judge reasonably The trial have could con- I separately points concur appel- error ten cluded that neither Dean Johnson nor eleven, regarding appellee’s police examining and lee whether at- consented to the Johnson, torney, po- Dean consented to stolen If the evidence documents. showed viewing by conclusively appellee, personally, lice property seized the Pro- that either Johnson, acting I agree appellee’s sens. do not Justice Andell or Dean with au- with thority, the consent moot or that to such an issue is consent is consented examina- 38.23(a) tion, exception agree not an art. I under to the would with Justice Wilson that illegal by private any rights property per- seizure of such a consent under art. waived determine, exception son. I an can believe that consent is to 38.23. As far as I Dean against protections illegal police the art. 38.23 Johnson never exam- sei- consented zures, by ining judge whether conducted “an officer these The trial or documents.1 Nevertheless, person.” other I could would hold have that it was not neces- concluded personal authority rights appellee's 1. Constitutional are to each be the issue of his to waive indi- vidual. If Dean Johnson had consented to the rights. documents, examination there would of the still are appellee’s verse orders sary police pa- to those for the examine contrary findings to all the evidence them to him or based on pers, either order to return hearing, upon erroneous anyone illegal presented in the prosecute for their seizure. to on uncontroverted judge legal could concluded that far from conclusion based The seizure, consenting to Dean facts. the Prosens’ objected it, sought prosecu- to their

Johnson analysis below from the would conclude it, desired the return tion on account of and by trial made legal that the conclusions having to confront them of the items without judge would from uneontroverted evidence therefore, should not person, findings that trial support court’s illegality. Thе officers’ benefit two, three, un- four five were searches papers was the involun- examination these corresponding reverse lawful. I would consequence illegal tary of the Prosens’ sei- suppression orders. course, complaining a theft zure. Of about inevitably exposing police to will entail one, majority agree with the (at degree) prop- least to a limited the stolen Sweeny Funer- of the warrantless search erty. person if a choose But must between day shooting, al Home on nothing allowing illegal doing seizure would, therefore, affirm unlawful. I go unpunished private to citizen corresponding suppression error one and the waiving right privacy complaining to order. really art. police, of the crime then 38.23 against private gives protection no seizures. 2: Search platter The silver doctrine would be reborn. 30, 1991; September significant construing It is that we are search of the hearse without a warrant. here, interpreting judge-made statute (Relevant two, Legislature common law. Texas has five) four, three, public policy declared the of this state to be Deputy stopped Cisneros When illegal persons by private seizures are Angleton, Highway on 288-B he testified wrong. wrong, such seizures Because are he did of information that John- so because property complain owners should be able to body. illegally transporting son was While giving up about them without Johnson, Deputy talking Cisneros rights very privacy art. 38.23 was de- hearse, standing more at the back two signed protect. Deputy up: officers law enforcement drove WILSON, Anderson and Lieutenant Jeff Gillenwaters. Justice, dissenting. Lieutenant testified that Cisneros respectfully dissent. talking his Gillenwaters was someone majority that the in- observes entire phone, got ear out him then and instructed quiry presumption is over that the with our custody for investi- place “to Mr. court found facts needed whatever Depart- gative through Sweeny Police hold ruling, unless the record shows corpse.” the theft of this ment. And for —for (1) following: that the either of time, Anderson, of the Deputy At that also suppression hearing at the would not County arrest- department, sheriffs Brazoria finding that reasonable searches transported him to the coun- ed Johnson and (2) unlawful; clearly the evidence were ty jail. convincingly suppression and shows that to the Deputy a It is drove the hearse as matter of law. true Cisneros erroneous patrol department fact sheriff’s office. While the trial court is the exclusive finder of hearse, cursory hearing may to was in he made a visual in a choose interior, and Prosen’s any or all of a search of the he saw believe or disbelieve witness’s 618, body He did testimony. lying in the back the hearse. Meek v. However, open glove compartment at this time. appel- if (Tex.Crim.App.1990). hearse Deputy delivered the review for of discretion is to be a When Cisneros late abuse station, in- exercise, they meaningful re- conducted we must be free to search, ventory yielded, among which possibly other black Cadillac hearse was things, papers.” “some life through Angleton insurance The back route granted sup- area, trial court motion to possibly, posses- with a—and press gained inventory the evidence in this body. sion of a stolen search. Q sorry. I’m A stolen what? two, three, four, five, In of error body, A A corpse. stolen the State asserts the trial court erred suppressing evidence obtained from the war- Q you spot Did a Cadillac hearse? rantless search of the hearse on did, Yes, A sir. 30,1991. September The motion to Q you stop Did alleged Cadillac? that thе search inwas violation of the (a) following: the fourth amendment of the Yes, A I did. Constitution; (b) I, United States article sec- Q you driving And can tell us who was (c) Constitution; tion 9 of the Texas the hearse? Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Jay A The driver was identified as John- point two, In alleges the State son. standing Johnson has no challenge agree majority’s search. analysis Q you prepare report your Did about standing of Johnson’s and its conclusion that stopping stop those —the vehicle of the Johnson could indeed contest the search. defendant? My analysis requires following obser- Yes, sir, A I did. point: vation at this The State asserts in added.) (Emphasis lawful, point of error stop three that the but it legality does address the cross-examination, however, On Deputy point. arrest under that Nor does the State Cisneros conceded report that his written assert under of error four that nothing dispatcher said about informing argument arrest was lawful. In its under him that transporting body the hearse was five, point of error the State asserts that “the illegally, simply body”: “transporting impoundment arrest and the are lawful.” Q Now, you the information —so contact- distinction between the and the dispatch, they you ed advised important legal arrest is to both the and the what? analyses. factual did not obtain They A advised me to be on the lookout any evidence as a stop prior result of the subject driving for a a black Cadillac the arrest. It obtained evidence the in- possibly hearse that’s in route from— ventory search that followed the arrest. area, through Angleton from Hous- reviewing sup- the order on this motion to ton. press, it is essential to determine whether Q you keep And for what reason the arrest was lawful. a lookout for that? Deputy Cisneros testified that he received A trying get For the sole reason of transporting a call that Johnson was a “sto- stopped him possibly due to him hav- body” len the hearse. Cisneros ing a stolen the back it. suspected had information that Johnson was Now, Q Okay. your that’s not what re- transporting body,” “illegally a “stolen port says, is it? transporting body,” then this would be a No, A sir. stop. reasonable basis for the direct On examination, Deputy Cisneros testified as fol- Q report says you Your were ad- lows: Jay driving vised to watch for

Q a you happened How is it black Cadillac hearse which was to come transporting body;

into a isn’t that cor- contact with the defendant? rect? day, got A On that I a call on some subject driving Right. Right. information that a A a investi- you him under Q Did tell he was nothing law about Q against the There’s transporting a suspicion gation for body, your a knowl- transporting to body? edge, is there? Right. No, A

A sir. says? stealing body? a Q your report Q that’s what But Or Yes, Right. A sir. A Stealing or you him.

Q did tell What transporting? any you Q there Was other offenses by Jay to be committed John- observed body. Stealing a A the time prior or the vehicle son body? Stealing a Q you stop? made actually say the Right. Or —I didn’t A stop. A Prior to time I made stealing body. a I said that word Yes, Q sir? some- body illegally was obtained in Houston. where my through dis- got A The information I due to patcher was that the —that was, Okay. it was Q Your information investigation of circumstances of the illegally obtained? him, investigation why stopped Right. A why Sweeny, he was going on that’s your say why report trans- Q And does Yes. stopped. ported? investigation. But for Q Because of body a in the back of A Because no other reason? car. that. Right. A No other reason besides words, testimony, your Q in other Well Q other offense was committed No here, today, your information was that your presence, right? a sto- you dispatch was of received Right. A say body. your report But doesn’t len it, body does Q you any anything told offenses about stоlen other Were transportation than the it? other

body? No, not. A it does just investigation that told of A I was why Q And is that? going that time. at dispatch- at the time the —the A Because Q investigation? homicide I re- me that what er told she—from Yes, call, A sir. my phone was due conversation They investigation Sweeny. at Q you told to arrest Mr. Were car, to asking stop me time, for of murder? the offense Johnson, if he identify Jay the driver stop, not told A Prior no was car, body if that in that and to see him. arrest in back his car. was—was Okay. you him for Q Were told to arrest Q Well— you made the reason the time why transporting saying I’m A And that’s stop? because, know, figured body, you No, A sir. hearse, he’s if he’s black him; just is Q You were asked to transporting in the back. that correct? Well, going to see cars Q it’s unusual Yes, A sir. go- hearses up highway, and down Q anything there else communicated Was carrying ing up highway and down the just stop him? you, other than many bodies, is it? You’ve seen times, you not? No, sir. A A Sure. Sure.

Q Specifically, dispatch 'permission. what was the A It was taken without And

you? body being Was it about a trans- it was taken force. ported? Q right. you All That’s what communi- Body being A transported. Department. cated the Sheriffs Q Body being transported. A I’m not I There was sure used the word that stolen,

nothing being about it was it? actual theft had occurred. No, sir, Right. Q Okay. A it was not. It was And that all on in- not. based you by

formation that was related to Robert Prosen? Q you Let up. me back You told him A Yes. why you stopped you him. Did tell you stopped you him him because had dispatch transporting he was So, Q you Department asked the Sheriff’s

body? Johnson; try Mr. is that Right. Right. A correct?

Q Nothing A body, about a stolen Yes. but he just transporting body? added.) (Emphasis Right. A The trial court also had before it then, Q deputy up. And another showed information, Murphy’s source of Chief Rob- Is that correct? Prosen, ert who testified on direct examina- tion as follоws: Right. A Q you, time, designate Jay Did added.) (Emphasis person Johnson as one that would be shows, excerpt As the above Cisne- pick up your body? able mother’s dispatcher ros conceded that had not fact, specifically A No. stated that actually used the word “stolen” in reference he was not. However, body. to Edwina Prosen’s in addi- testimony, Murphy tion to Cisneros’ Chief (on cross-examination) testified that Robert Q you you Would tell us what told them Sweeny

Prosen came to Depart- Police Embalming [Escort Service]? p.m. ment after 6:00 September A spoke Yes. with a fellow named reported body that “the had been removed Allen, believe, night Fred on the home, by from the funeral Chief [.] ” force September. the 29th of inAnd Murphy testified that he then called the Bra- discussion, very clearly we—it was County zoria Sheriffs Office and informed that I stated was the executor of the them as follows: estate, son Edwina Prosen and was A I advised them that I had information responsible my mother didn’t body that the had been taken from the body anybody want her released to permission funeral home without myself my two brothers. family by force, and had ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍been taken cross-examination, repeated On this as- hearse, inwas the funeral home Sweeny sertion that he had informed the probably Sweeny headed back towards body Police that his mother’s had been taken Prosen, Jeffrey and that the son of the Embalming from Escort force and Service deceased, gone to meet with Mr. without authorization: possible Johnson. And it one Q you report Did or call the parties or both were armed. And we anyone police agency tell at the conflict, they feared a should meet. your body mother’s had been stolen? Well, then, Q Okay. nothing, there was A Depart- I did talk to the Police that was communicated Sheriff’s ment. was, indeеd, Department, sto- len, was there? judicial took notice of body The trial court

Q your that mom’s had Tex. Was after (Ver- Safety § 711.002 removed from Escort Embalm- been Code Ann. Health & 1992), disposition of covers the ing? non which duty provides, to inter. It remains and the and A Before after. pertinent part, as follows: Well, Q just tell me about after. Who (a) other di- a decedent has left Unless to, you talk first of all? did dece- disposition the rections for police. A The chief of remains, following persons, the dent’s say Q you tell or And what did listed, right to control priority police? chief of cremation, including disposition, remains, person’s the re- shall inter time, my A At that I informed that mains, reasonable taken, are liable and been body mother’s had without cost interment: my authority. I asked the chief if And something there was that could be (1) surviving spouse; the decedent’s her, re- done secure because was (2) surviving adult chil- the decedent’s family. sponsible for her. The dren; Q you Murphy Did tell that some- Chief overpowered one had the attendants at (a) (b) has person A listed Subsection body funeral taken home and right, duty, liability provided and by force? person if there is no subsection A I believe Yes. I believe I told— that. priority person. listed before the Q Murphy. told I’m You to Chief added.) (Emphasis asking you you what told. asking you I’m you what told Chief indicates, As this a decedent’s code section you Murphy. did tell him? What spouse over adult children priority has right Jay of remains. If Johnson dispose A believe told him that. mar- into a had fact entered common-law Q You told him that someone had over- Prosen, riage he had the with Edwina then powered some attendant or someone at her right 711.002 to remove under section Embalming you Escort and taken Embalming remains Escort Service. body by mom’s force? however, not, the reason- This does address Jay A No someone. Johnson. police stop. Thе could have ableness of the Jay right to been mistaken about Johnson’s added.) (Emphasis remains, remove Prosen’s but such Edwina Most of defense counsel’s cross-examina- stop make unreason- mistake would tion, above, excerpts other than the focused able. accuracy on the of Robert asser- Prosen’s (1) alleged do if the court found tions and beliefs force- We not know about: ful, marriage taking body; between Johnson unauthorized of his mother’s common-law irrelevant, (2) Jay finding whether Edwina Prosen and Prosen. would be Such however, determining legality of the might mar- have entered into a common-law riage knowledge; stop. trial court based its without Robert Prosen’s (3) marriage, actually finding a Prosen was order on common-law whether Robert error, regardless a com- this was of whether the executor his mother’s estate at actually All that marriage existed. evidently at- mon-law moment. Defense counsel is Cisneros tempting to was matters here whether show that Robert Prosen Jay Jay had believe that legality about reason to mistaken body. are transporting This is- a stolen removal Edwina Prosen’s facts however, sue, undisputed point. testified legality He does not address effect, dispatch stop. if is reason- he received a is lawful able, ultimately testified that this was what proven Murphy if the are Chief even told office. legal presumptions. the sheriff’s to be mistaken on their — it, as, -, With the evidence before the trial court U.S. S.Ct. only could Deputy (1993). have found that Cisneros Deputy L.Ed.2d 700 Cisneros did stop Jay had reason to Johnson in the testify stopped that he suspi- Johnson for suppres- hearse. the trial court based its only cion of murder. He testified that he legal sion order on stop a conclusion that the stopped illegally transporting Johnson for given facts, was undisрuted unreasonable body. testimony His was later undermined this was error. The information before the acknowledged when he report only that his trial court could not a reasonable dispatcher stated that “transporting said finding stop that the was unlawful. I would body” specifically stating without that the stop conclude that the was reasonable as a transportation inwas violation of the law. matter of law under these facts. But this Having already stop concluded that yet suppression does not reach any reasonable, was I turn to whether the offi- evidence, continuing analysis as the shows. probable cers had cause to arrest Johnson. No evidence was obtained as a result of reasonably If the trial court could have found itself, Deputy because neither Cisne- probable the officers had no cause to ros nor other officer searched the hearse Johnson, suppression arrest proper. then was immediately following stop. The search Wade, 814 at 764. S.W.2d This is true re- Therefore, followed the arrest. we must con- gardless of implicit finding the trial court’s sider whether the arrest was valid. The legality stop. of the For suppression legally can pursuant conduct a search proper, to be we must conclude that the trial to a lawful arrest. United States v. Robin probable found that the officers had no son, 218, 234, 467, 476, 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. 38 cause to arrest Johnson. (1973); State, L.Ed.2d 427 Carrasco v. 120, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). S.W.2d If the light “totality of the circum- lawful, record shows that the arrest was then above, Hafford, stances” set forth 828 S.W.2d the evidence from the search was Deputy we must consider Cisneros’s lawfully, obtained and the trial court abused testimony about the arrest. Direct examina- its discretion in suppressing it. On the other tion: hand, if legally the trial court could conclude Q you subsequently place Did Mr. John- facts, the arrest was unlawful under the then custody? son in Wade, suppression proper. was Yes, sir, A he was. at 764. Q placed custody? He was Deputy Cisneros testified that Dep- he and uty Yes, Anderson arrested A Johnson on Lieuten- sir. ant Deputy Gillenwaters’ orders.1 Neither Q By you?

Anderson nor Lieutenant Gillenwaters testi- A No. Not me. suppression hearing. fied at the Q placed custody? Who Mr. Johnson in testimony concerning the basis for Johnson’s A I Deputy believe it was Anderson. Deputy arrest came from Cisneros on cross- examination. Cisneros testified that Q Okay. you transport Did Mr. John- thought probable he had cause to arrest son? transporting body Johnson for that John- No, A I did not. son had illegally. obtained This was the Cross-examination: gave stopping same reason he for Johnson. Q happened, What hap- then? What testify He did not that he arrested Johnson pened, next? suspicion for of murder. Then, my patrol lieutenant, A “totality Jeff Gillen- of the circumstances” test waters, up.

applies showed And he determining probable was —I cause for talking warrantless don’t know arrests. who he was to on his Hafford (Tex.App. phone, talking S.W.2d car he was Worth to some- — Fort ref'd), denied, pet. time, ert. v. Tex- phone. on his car At that c Hafford Hearsay hearing probable is admissible in to determine cause for an arrest. Well, arising out of the other Q couple of what really happened for a nothing mur- allegation of department was the minutes. der; Investigative correct? isn’t that during time. Q going on What was for murder? hold Nothing? Nobody was— No, called dis- From the A sir. just standing around. A Yeah. We were —I going me patch, and she told what Nobody looking in Q the vehicle? Sweeny, that he was—from what on in A No. Not at that time. No. was that got out of that conversation Q Okay. was, know, you incident whole the —this Myself and Mr. Anderson A We waited. рolice de- occurring from another Johnson, in back of the waited with Mr. us. partment. Not from hearse. And until lieutenant Cadillac in- regarding But Q I understand that. got finally out of his car. He come mur- the offense of vestigative hold for talking phone. He through on the der, right? place then told to Mr. was—we were Right. A custody investigative hold corpse, Q If there was a theft of Sweeny Department. through Police your something that occurred corpse. And for —for the theft of there; you were presence, because corpse? Q For the theft of the corpse possession, in his you saw Right. A correct? So, Q Okay. right. All that was Jeff they got Right. I don’t know where A telling you things, those Gillenwaters information, I but that was what their deputy? was told. A Yes. say you Q it fair to didn’t Would be Q depart- he is And Sheriffs any probable cause at the time ment? of a Mr. Johnson for theft and arrest Yes, A sir. He was at the time. you? corpse, did Q investigator Is he an with the Sheriffs corpse. of a A For the theft Department at the time? Yes, Q sir? my patrol A He lieutenant. got phone I A From the time that Now, Q Patrol lieutenant? after —after sir, know, call, you I had yes, I had — you advised Jeff Gillenwaters possibly in that he was reason to believe place custody, you him in did do? what body. corpse or a possession of a Anderson, A I assisted Mr. Q that’s no— Well placing Anderson the —Mr. Johnson custody. placed He was searched and dispatch I told A From what was patrol ear. back office. object I’ll COUNSEL]: [DEFENSE Q you why you out a your Can tell me filled response, Honor. to the report misdemeanor miscellaneous THE COURT: Sustained. connection with this incident? Cisneros, my Q question is that Officer Why. A you had Mr. Johnson out the time that Yes, Q sir? roadside, you did not have there at the pertaining A to our Because wasn’t him for theft of probable cause to arrest pertaining to the department. It was you? corpse, did Department. Police stopped I him. the reason A That was Well, Q you miscel- do use misdemeanor illegally or he had That he was—that arise reports for incidents that laneous body from Hous- unlawfully obtained a departments? out of other in route over here with ton and was back my presumption. Yes, it. That was A we do. Q you got sorry. I’m the vehicle back COUNSEL]: When [DEFENSE Department, you did then object. responsive. what It’s still not It’s Sheriffs yes question. do? no Well, going office, I’m got

THE COURT: patrol A out Back behind now, [Ljieutenant it, may as it stands. You overrule car. I waited for no, like, yes you’d if pursue your to arrive at that time. We Gillenwaters though. pho- Division to come contacted our I.D. vehicle, then, I tograph the conduct- Q probable You didn’t have Yes or no. inventory. ed cause? added.) (Emphasis Yes, A I did. believe Q you probable cause? You felt the most arduous cross-examina- Under tion, maintained that he Deputy Cisneros Yes, sir, A I did. “[Unlawfully transport- stopped Johnson for Q probable "What was the cause? [,] ing and that he arrested Johnson ” probable A The cause was due to the on the orders of Lieutenant Gillenwaters “for investigation Sweeny, impending from corpse.” Deputy Cisneros theft of I and from—and the information that immediately prior testified that to Lieutenant thought I got. That. Yes. And I place Gillenwaters’ instructions to right in stopping that car. custody, phone had on the Gillenwaters been Well, police Although car. did Q you any didn’t have details of the his Gillenwaters Murphy Sweeny, you. testify, testified that he information out of did Chief coming had the Sheriffs office to ask them to You didn’t have details from called time, transporting body. you? stop Johnson for a stolen at that did Murphy placed this call after Robert Chief They just gave A me a brief run- No. office, which he testi- Prosen came to his haрpened there. down what over 6:00, o’clock,prob- fied was “After 6:00. 7:00 Q you And the other information ably.” stopped approximate- Johnson was someone, according had was that custody approxi- ly p.m. placed 7:12 somebody overpowered Mr. Johnson had mately 20 to 30 minutes later. The unchal- body, at the embalmer and had taken a facts, totality, lenged taken their indicate correct? probable cause to arrest that the officers had overpowered anybody, A Not that he had trial court Because I believe the Johnson. from what— upon misapplication based its decision facts, legal undisputed rather principles to So, Q you didn’t even know at the finding a material fact at variance than the time, you? did position, I would find the with the State’s Right. A discretion. trial court abused its Q Okay. you All knew was that he I of error three. would sustain was—you by dispatch, told I be- is, your testimony is lieve he five, points In of error four and the State transporting body? inventory asserts that the warrantless search Yes, A sir. of the hearse was lawful under the United This is cor- States and Texas Constitutions. Q you stop him? And that were asked to to conduct police rect. The are authorized Unlawfully transporting body. A inventory suspect’s of a vehicle search you Q And were asked to him? Lafay- following a lawful arrest. Illinois Yes, sir, ette, 643-44, A I was. 462 103 S.Ct. U.S. (1983); 2608, L.Ed.2d 65 Gauldin v. you really Q That’s all the information (Tex.Crim.App.1984). S.W.2d had at that time? really points I sustain of error four and A That’s all the information would at that time. five. 4: relating Search points of error To summarize 1991; 1-3, October of the hearse to the warrantless search received, passively Police (Search 2), could not reason- the trial court family, the Prosen stop and arrest ably have found family property that the Prosen By sustaining points of error

were unlawful. the funеral home. took from five, three, four and I would hold (Relevant seven, points of error suppress- trial court abused its discretion 11) eight, nine, 10, and ing obtained in the warrantless the evidence inventory search of the hearse. that Dean Prosen learned Robert When complaint burglary had filed review, agree did have that Johnson brothers, offered to Prosen against the would, standing to contest the search. to Dean Johnson. How- return all the items three, four, however, sustain Johnson, ever, Jay who was Dean arrest, five, stop, that the and hold Prosen not to attorney, instructed Robert were lawful. and the him and Prosen handed the items to return police. Dean Johnson them over custody maintain asked Search 3: had removed from the items that the Prosens 1, 1991; search of the October Murphy testified funeral home. Chief hearse with a warrant. containing over boxes the Prosens turned 6) (Relevant Error to Point of that were the sub- thousands of documents 1991, 1, day the after John- On October ject burglary complaint. He further of the inventory the arrest and the search of son’s duty it the of the that he considered testified hearse, the hearse inventory, the officers searched photograph, police department to again, this time with a warrant. The items that were turned over and list all of the burglary this in connection with granted suppress Johnson’s motion to to them court granted the motion charge. The trial court The the evidence obtained this search. the evidence that the Prosens to all findings upon based the from warrant was home and delivered took from the funeral search, day’s inventory and it preceding Department. Police purpose was to specifically stated policies. I conclud- seize life insurance majority holds that Tex.Code CRIM. The that the trial court аbused its dis- ed above 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp.1995), pre art. P.Ann. finding cretion in the warrantless search using against Johnson vents suppressing to be unlawful and in the hearse unlawfully that were of the documents gained the evidence as a result. agree I by Prosens. taken per private the actions of applies statute testimony requires The the trial court government agents. limited to sons and is not of the conclude that the warrant search did not abuse agree that the trial court I also not violate Johnson’s constitution- hearse did finding that some of its discretion rights. presume that the trial al must We Prosens, unlawfully by items were taken to search the court found that the warrant 38.23(a). Hence, I triggering article thus poison- upon the “fruit of the hearse rested majority’s to overrule agree decision with gained pre- from the tree” —the evidence ous part company I point of error seven. day’s search. Such a find- vious warrantless however, determining the majority, suppressing the ing, and the resultant order to both instructions effect of Dean Johnson’s of the obtained from the search Murphy. and the Chief Prosen Robert warrant, constituted an hearse with majority the trial states Therefore, the trial of discretion. abuse that Dean Johnson never have found could ob- suppressing the evidence court erred the evi- police to review consented for of the hearse. tained from the warrant search took. The evidence that the Prosens dence hearing will not six. at the point sustain of error would inventory in the information obtained finding. complained Dean such Jay Prosens had taken Johnson’s the Prosens had delivered evidence that illegally. then de- property Dean Johnson majority’s deter- police. agree with the offer to return what- clined Robert Prosen’s reasonable, sub- mination that Johnson had Prosens, taken, they had and the know- ever privacy in the funeral jective expectation of subject of Dean ing the items were the number five. home on the date search every- burglary complaint, turned Johnson’s 735, 740, Maryland, 442 v. U.S. Smith did thing police. to the Dean Johnson over (1979). 61 L.Ed.2d 220 S.Ct. to the testify about whether he consented Hence, standing had to contest Pro- police reviewing the evidence that the to over- agree and I with the decision trial court had delivered to them. The sens rule testimony finding of Chief base Murphy. Murphy testified that Dean Chief majority’s disagree determina- with the police to maintain Johnson then asked trial court could have found tion that the custody. actions constituted Dean These validity Wingo to be invalid. warrant police consent for the Johnson’s legality police upon the the warrant turns that the Prosens took from the the evidence by to them inventory of the items delivered funeral home. I have concluded above the Prosens. that it was ille- extension, Johnson does not contend Johnson, Jay John- Dean gal police department to receive the for the son, custody in- police to the consented evidence, argue illegal he does that it was ventory everything the Prosens taken they did. for the to use the evidence as through days the three from October over Johnson, persuasive. as This is not Dean Wingo was based 3. The warrant October Jay attorney, consented to such Johnson’s legal upon documents to which the State Jay behalf. is review on Consent access. The warrant was valid the Octo- general rule that war- exception 16, 1991, home was search of the funeral ber per se. rantless searches are unreasonable its discretion valid. The trial court abused Bustamante, 412 U.S. Schneckloth suppressing from the funeral evidence seized 2041, 2043, 854 36 L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. home under a valid warrant. (1973); Fancher v. (Tex.Crim.App.1983). 13. I would sustain of error though its

Even the trial court was within items had discretion to find that some of the Summary and Conclusion illegally, taken the State had Johnson’s been inventory to review and the evidence consent error, summarize, points in To home Prosens took from the funeral sup- orders to appealed has from five through October over October found, from press The trial court evidence. any operated consent to waive Johnson’s suppression before it at the the evidence 38.23(a). The court complaint under Article were unlawful. hearing, the searches suppressing in abused its discretion majority no abuse of discretion sees had consented which Johnson I suppression orders. dis- of the five custody and review. I majority on four of the five. agree with the nine, eight, points I of error would sustain trial court abused hold that would 10, and 11. three, two, by finding searches discretion four, unlawful when the evi- and five to be 5: Search hearing will dence at the 16, 1991: October findings. support such the funeral home search of with a warrant. overruling point of join majority in 13) (Relevant points 12 and of error one, suppression of pertaining to the error Henee, I one. videotape from search funeral home was The final search of the suppression order. also based on would sustain under a warrant conducted join majority overruling 12, challenging standing

two and of the hearse and the

to contest the searches join majority in I also

funeral home. seven, addressing

overruling point of error meaning person” term “other 38.23(a).

Article company majority on the part with the remaining I would

legality of the searches. five, ‍​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍three, four, six, points of error

sustain nine, 10,11, and 13. I hold that

eight, would sup- abused its discretion

the trial court

pressing obtained from searches the evidence four, i.e.,

two, three, and five: warrant; of the hearse without a

following the hearse a war- search of

rant; the search of the items that the Pro- police; delivered to the and the search

sens Wingo

of the funeral home under the war-

rant.

Accordingly, I would reverse those four part

suppression orders. I would affirm part.

and reverse and remand COUNTY, Texas, Appellant

HARRIS GOING, Appellee.

Ronald F.

No. 01-93-00406-CV. Texas, Appeals

Court (1st Dist.).

Houston

March 1995.

Rehearing April Overruled

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Johnson

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Apr 20, 1995

Citation: 896 S.W.2d 277

Docket Number: 01-93-00287-CR

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.