Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
847 opinions found
Calvin Dorsey Jr. v. The State of Texas
COA12
After a trial commenced, it became apparent that a juror lacked sufficient English proficiency to understand the proceedings. The defendant moved for a mistrial, but the trial court denied the motion because the issue was not raised during jury selection. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed, analyzing the distinction between absolute disqualifications and waivable challenges for cause. The court held that a juror's inability to comprehend English is a waivable challenge that must be exercised during voir dire; failure to do so precludes a mistrial or a later challenge to the jury's composition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely solely on a juror's self-certification of English proficiency on their questionnaire; you must actively vet their comprehension through open-ended questions during voir dire or risk waiving any future objection to their fitness to serve."
Kapasi v. Villarreal
COA14
In this case, Ashrafi Kapasi sued Stalina Villarreal over a motor vehicle accident. Villarreal eventually filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a(i), asserting Kapasi lacked evidence for essential elements of the claims. Kapasi did not file a response but argued that her prior request for a jury trial and payment of the jury fee preserved her right to a trial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 166a(i) and the Texas Constitution, determining that the right to a jury trial is not absolute but contingent upon the existence of a material fact issue. The court held that a trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment if the non-movant fails to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of fact, regardless of a pending jury demand.
Litigation Takeaway
"A jury demand is not a shield against summary judgment; failing to file a timely, evidence-backed response to a no-evidence motion will result in the mandatory dismissal of your claims, even if you have paid for a jury."
In the Matter of the Expunction of K.J.
COA08
After K.J. was indicted for causing injury to a child, the State dismissed the charges due to 'insufficient evidence' and K.J.'s completion of a parenting class. K.J. subsequently sought an expunction of the records. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of the expunction, clarifying that 'insufficient evidence' is not legally equivalent to the statutory requirements of 'mistake, false information, or lack of probable cause' needed for an expunction. The court held that because expunction is a statutory privilege and not an equitable right, the petitioner failed to meet the strict evidentiary burden required to scrub the criminal record.
Litigation Takeaway
"A criminal dismissal for 'insufficient evidence' does not automatically entitle a party to an expunction. For family law practitioners, this means that unless an opponent can prove factual innocence or mistake in an expunction hearing, their history of arrests or indictments for child abuse remains accessible and admissible for 'best interest' analyses in custody disputes."
In re Stephen Girard
COA03
After a father was sentenced to 180 days in jail for allegedly violating child possession provisions, the Third Court of Appeals ordered his immediate discharge because the trial court's commitment order was too vague. The Court analyzed Texas Family Code § 157.166(b), which mandates that enforcement orders must include specific findings identifying the provisions violated and the exact dates of non-compliance. Because the trial court relied on a generic 'Writ to Sheriff' that lacked these details, the appellate court held the order was void for violating constitutional due process requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking to jail a party for contempt, a 'win' at the hearing is meaningless if the final commitment order is not drafted with extreme technical precision. An enforcement order must explicitly list every date of violation and the specific decree language breached; otherwise, the incarcerated party can secure their release through a habeas corpus challenge based on due process deficiencies."
Kappler v. State
COA14
Kappler appealed a felony DWI conviction, claiming the evidence was insufficient because of a three-hour delay between the crash and her blood draw, alongside potential lab contamination from a gas leak. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the state's "stacked proof," which included civilian observations of her unsteady gait, officer notes on slurred speech and field sobriety test failures, and a 0.102 BAC result. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could find intoxication under both impairment and per se theories, and that technical challenges to testing reliability generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its legal sufficiency.
Litigation Takeaway
"When alleging alcohol impairment in custody or divorce proceedings, build a "mosaic of evidence" by combining behavioral observations, inconsistent statements, and physical clues with chemical testing; this layered approach helps defeat "delay" or "technicality" defenses that attempt to isolate and discredit a single piece of evidence."
Allen v. State
COA14
In a human trafficking appeal with significant procedural implications for family law litigators, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed issues regarding evidence suppression, impeachment by prior convictions, and jury unanimity. The defendant argued the trial court failed to rule on a second motion to suppress and erred in its evidentiary and jury charge rulings. The appellate court analyzed the record under the principle that a signed written order controls over oral announcements and evaluated the jury charge under the 'Almanza' egregious harm standard. The court held that the written order constituted a valid ruling, the admission of prior convictions for impeachment was within the trial court's discretion, and the lack of a unanimity instruction did not cause egregious harm, ultimately affirming the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To preserve error for appeal, always ensure a signed written order is entered, as it overrides ambiguous oral statements from the bench; furthermore, in credibility-heavy trials like SAPCRs or protective order hearings, litigators must proactively request specific jury instructions or findings of fact to avoid the near-insurmountable 'egregious harm' standard for unpreserved charge errors."
Bess v. State
COA01
Kendrick Bess appealed his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member, asserting that the trial judge's active participation—including questioning witnesses and summarizing testimony—deprived him of a fair trial and demonstrated judicial bias. The First Court of Appeals first addressed whether the appeal was 'multifarious' for combining multiple legal theories into one point of error, concluding that appellate courts have the discretion to review such issues in the interest of justice if the complaint is discernable. On the merits, the court analyzed the judge's conduct under the 'Liteky' standard, finding that the interventions were intended for clarification and courtroom administration rather than advocacy. The court held that a judge's active role does not violate due process unless it reveals such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial judges are permitted wide latitude to question witnesses and manage their courtrooms; to successfully challenge a judge's impartiality on appeal, a party must show that the judge’s actions revealed deep-seated favoritism or extrajudicial bias rather than mere impatience or a desire for clarification."
Bess v. State
COA01
Kendrick Bess appealed his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member, arguing that the trial judge’s active questioning and summarization of witness testimony violated his due process right to a neutral and detached judge. The State contended the appeal was procedurally defective because it was 'multifarious'—bundling multiple legal theories into a single point of error. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the 'interest of justice' exception, determining that it could review multifarious issues if the underlying complaint is discernable with reasonable certainty. On the merits, the court held that trial judges are presumed neutral and that actions taken to manage the courtroom or clarify facts do not constitute bias unless they reveal high-degree favoritism or antagonism. The court ultimately found the judge’s interventions were administrative in nature and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To challenge a trial judge's perceived bias on appeal, you must build a record of conduct that transcends mere 'courtroom management'; however, even if your appellate brief is technically multifarious, the 'interest of justice' standard may save the issue if the alleged error is clearly identifiable."
In the Interest of C.G.
COA14
In this case, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's decree terminating a father's parental rights while he was incarcerated. The Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the 'best interest' finding, arguing that his participation in prison-based parenting classes and future plans for employment as a barber should weigh in his favor. The court analyzed the conflict using the Holley factors, focusing on the Father's extensive history of violent criminal conduct—including offenses committed after he knew of the child's existence—and his lack of financial support. The court contrasted this with the child's strong bond with a stable caregiver (a Great Aunt). Ultimately, the court held that the Father’s history of instability and danger outweighed his limited rehabilitative efforts, affirming the termination decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"While incarceration alone is not a sufficient ground for termination, a persistent pattern of violent criminal activity—particularly conduct occurring after a parent is aware of their child—is highly probative of future danger and serves as strong evidence that termination is in the child's best interest."
In re Ha Duong
COA01
In the divorce case of In re Ha Duong, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on several pending motions that had been delayed. The First Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court had breached its ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time. The court determined that because the trial judge remained engaged in the litigation and was 'actively managing' the case through other proceedings, the delay did not amount to a refusal to act. Consequently, the appellate court denied the petition, holding that the relator failed to prove a clear abuse of discretion or a total breakdown in the judicial process.
Litigation Takeaway
"The mere passage of time is rarely enough to force a judge to rule; you must demonstrate that the trial court has completely stopped managing the case or specifically refused to perform its duty despite proper requests."