constitutional or statutory violation in Texas

2025A defendant’s right to the submission of an Article 38.23(a) jury instruction “is limited to disputed issues of fact that are material to [her] claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render evidence inadmissible.” Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 , 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

2024App. 1984) (en banc). 13 A defendant’s right to the submission of an Article 38.32 jury instruction “is limited to disputed issues of fact that are material to [her] claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render evidence inadmissible.” Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 , 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

2024In order to be entitled to such an instruction, “the defendant must show that (1) an issue of historical fact was raised in front of the jury; (2) the fact was contested by affirmative evidence at trial; and (3) the fact is material to the constitutional or statutory violation that the defendant has identified as rendering the particular evidence inadmissible.” Robinson v. State, 377 S.W.3d 712, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2023In order to be entitled to 3 During the hearing on Turner’s motion to suppress, Turner’s counsel informed the court that he would like to “outline[] what happened there at the residence of Jennifer Garrett and Travis Turner the morning of August 12th.” Turner immediately stated, “That wasn’t my legal residence.” 4 Moreover, there was testimony at trial that officers did not enter the residence until after a search warrant was signed by a judge. 13 such an instruction, “the defendant must show that (1) an issue of historical fact was raised in front of the jury; (2) the fact was contested by af

2025Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex. 2000); Lowe v. Tex. Tech Univ. 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1976).

1980As instrumentalities of the state, the systems themselves are not liable for the torts of their officers or employees in the absence of a constitutional or statutory requirement to the contrary. e Lowe v. Texas Tech University, 540 S.W. 2d 297 (Tex. 1976); 52 Tex. Jur. 2d State of Texas S50, at 761.

2024City of Houston v. Daniels, 66 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Mount Pleasant Indep.

2017City of Houston v. Daniels, 66 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Mount Pleasant Indep.

2024Our suggestion in 59 Id.; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737 (1993) (presence of alternates in jury deliberations, with instructions not to participate, did not affect substantial rights of defendants). 60 See, e.g., Tex. Const. Art. 5 §4(a) (“The Court of Criminal Appeals shall consist of eight Judges and one Presiding Judge.”) Becerra - 27 Trinidad that there might be a constitutional or statutory violation of the twelve-person jury requirement if an alternate juror participates in the jury’s “ultimate verdict” was unsupported dicta.

2024Our suggestion in 59 Id.; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737 (1993) (presence of alternates in jury deliberations, with instructions not to participate, did not affect substantial rights of defendants). 60 See, e.g., Tex. Const. Art. 5 §4(a) (“The Court of Criminal Appeals shall consist of eight Judges and one Presiding Judge.”) Becerra - 27 Trinidad that there might be a constitutional or statutory violation of the twelve-person jury requirement if an alternate juror participates in the jury’s “ultimate verdict” was unsupported dicta.

2019App. 2007); see also Holmes v. State, 248 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Tex. Crim.

2010Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); see also Holmes v. State, 248 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (“There is, of course, nothing to instruct the jury about if the suppression question is one of law only, and there is nothing to instruct the jury about unless there is affirmative evidence that raises a contested fact issue.”).

2015A defendant’s right to the submission of an instruction under article 38.23(a) “is limited to disputed issues of fact that are material to his claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render evidence inadmissible.” Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. filed) (quoting Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 , 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

2011A defendant’s right to the submission of an instruction under article 38.23(a) “is limited to disputed issues of fact that are material to his claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render evidence inadmissible.” Jones v. State , 338 S.W.3d 725, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. filed) (quoting Madden v. State , 242 S.W.3d 504 , 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 513 ; see Brooks, 707 S.W.2d at 706 .

2010See Madden , 242 S.W.3d at 513 ; see Brooks , 707 S.W.2d at 706 .

2020Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 , 173–74, 177 (Tex. Crim.

2020App. 2007); see Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 177 (Tex. Crim.

2011Meca Homes, 969 S.W.2d at 451 ; Grant, 916 S.W.2d at 46 .

1998Grant v. Wood, 916 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).

2025Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 611 (Tex. 2000); Lowe v. Tex. Tech Univ. 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1976).

2024See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 226–28 (Tex. 2004) (stating that the standard of review for a jurisdictional plea based on evidence generally mirrors the traditional-summary-judgment standard). 3 Governmental units are not liable for the torts of their agents unless there is a constitutional or statutory waiver of immunity.

2024Under Madden, there are three 12 requirements for the mandatory inclusion of a 38.23 instruction: “(1) [t]he evidence heard by the jury must raise an issue of fact; (2) [t]he evidence on that fact must be affirmatively contested; and (3) [t]hat contested factual issue must be material to the lawfulness of the challenged conduct in obtaining the evidence.” Id. at 510 ; see Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302, 306 (Tex. Crim.

2022Harris County v. Coats, 607 S.W.3d 359 , 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.); see Democracy Coal. v. City of Austin, 141 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (policy can be official custom or take form of duly promulgated policy statements, regulations, or similar act (citing Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001))).

2022Harris County v. Coats, 607 S.W.3d 359 , 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.); see Democracy Coal. v. City of Austin, 141 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (policy can be official custom or take form of duly promulgated policy statements, regulations, or similar act (citing Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001))).

2022City of Houston v. Collins, 515 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2020See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480-81 ; Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 ; Adickes v. S.H.

2020Each liability question required appellees to identify a final policymaker for Harris County concerning the violation at issue, which the county says was not done.6 Regarding policymakers in the section 1983 context, our task is to “identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policymaking authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue.” McMillian, 520 U.S. at 784 - 85; see Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 482-83 .

2019App. 2007) (citing Pierce v. State, 32 S.W.3d 247, 251 (Tex. Crim.

2016ANN. art. 38.23(a); Serrano v. State, 464 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d) (observing that a defendant’s right to the submission of an article 38.23 jury instruction “is limited to disputed issues of fact that are material to his claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render evidence inadmissible” (quotation marks omitted)).

2015Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 509-10 . “[A]n Article 38.23 instruction must be included in the jury charge only if there is a factual dispute about how the evidence was obtained.” Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 85 (Tex. Crim.