for the defense for the defense - Voice For The Defense Online

contained marijuana—even though D was no longer inhandcuffs—because officer had removed his Taser gunfrom his belt and was holding it in his hand. Turrubiatev. State, No. 04-10-00744-CR (Tex.App.—San AntonioNov 9, 2011)Nothing in the record suggested that destruction of marijuanaevidence was at risk; D willingly answered door and madeno movement as if he were about to destroy evidence, and officerstood away from D’s peephole while CPS investigator knockedon the door such that D would not have been aware of policeinvolvement. As to search of the bag, COA also noted that itis unclear whether D had been made fully aware that he coulddecline consent to search.D lacked standing to challenge search of hotel room; Dwas merely there to visit another occupant (who paidfor the room) and D did not intend to spend the night.State v. Valdez, No. 08-10-00260-CR (Tex.App.—El PasoNov 9, 2011)In addition, “neither [D] nor the other members of thegroup took any precautions to ensure privacy prior to [officer’s]arrival.”Testimony regarding insurance company’s determinationof fault was admissible in prosecution for manslaughterwhere D claimed she was not at fault for the collisionbetween her vehicle and motorcycle. Mitchell v. State,No. 10-10-00307-CR (Tex.App.—Waco Nov 9, 2011)“Although this type of evidence could have a tendency tosuggest a decision on an improper basis in a criminal case, thetrial court could have reasonably concluded that in this case, itdid not.”2012 Books!TCDLA’s new books are nowavailable to order.Order online atwww.tcdla.com or bycalling (512) 478-2514.