DISTRICT ATTORNEY LOSES GUN CASE AT DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS


 On August 12, 2013, the Dallas Court of Appeals announced its decision in a case on appeal from the Dallas County Criminal Court Number One, which is presided over by Judge Dan Patterson, a former Dallas defense attorney. The defendant successfully appealed after being convicted by a jury of intentionally carrying a weapon while not on his own property.

The testimony of the investigating police officers only established that the defendant was carrying a weapon in the common area of the condominium complex where he lived. When asked why he had a gun in plain view, the defendant said he performed walk-throughs of the condominium complex, although he was not a state-certified security guard.https://askcompetentlawyer.com/complex-litigation/ He was arrested.

The president of the condominium complex testified on behalf of the defendant. She confirmed that he owned a unit in the complex and also testified that every condominium owner possessed an undivided interest in the common areas of the property, including the parking lot, the breezeway and the walkways.

The Court of Appeals analyzed the elements of the crime and determined that the prosecution was required to prove that the defendant was not on his own property. The Court also found that the prosecution had provided insufficient evidence to prove this during the trial. Because a defendant must be found guilty of every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court ordered that the defendant be acquitted.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof that the prosecution is held to in criminal trials. In civil trials, the standard of proof is lower. The standard is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt even if the government is trying to take away someone's children; in those cases it must only be "clear and convincing."

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT REMINDS OFFICERS THAT THEY CANNOT STAY FOR DINNER AFTER ASKED TO LEAVE

Изображение
  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a situation last week that I have seen come up in Dallas County drug cases more than once: what do the police have to do when somebody lets the police come into their home but then changes their mind? The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, with the case originating from Kerrville. The defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession. When deputy sheriffs responded to a disturbance call at her apartment, the defendant answered the door, and she appeared intoxicated and distraught. The officers asked to go inside, and the defendant agreed. While waiting on a warrant check, the defendant changed her mind about letting the police in and asked them to leave. The officers ignored her request because they wanted the warrant check to came back before they decided to leave. Lawyer office in Georgia . While waiting, the officers saw evidence of drug use, and the defendant shortly thereafter admit
Далее...

TEXAS LAW BOND CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN DALLAS COURTS

Изображение
 Issues concerning the defendant's right to a bond and the amount of the bond are often contested after an arrest in Dallas County. Both the federal and state constitutions, and specific Texas law, prohibit excessive bail. A hearing can be held, and if the defendant can appeal if he believes that the bond is set too high in violation of his rights. In setting the amount of bail, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the defendant's work record; (2) the defendant's family and community ties; (3) the defendant's length of residency; (4) the defendant's prior criminal record; (5) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (6) any aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial on the offense charged. Lawyer office in Georgia . The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as req
Далее...

HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS BLAMES DEFENDANT FOR TEXAS ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION WARNINGS

Изображение
 Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. Lawyer office in Georgia . A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific.&qu
Далее...