Interoffice comunicacion of law case later on lee

Double Jeopardy, Tx, Forensic Facts, Criminal Procedure

Excerpt from Essay:

Interoffice Comunicacion of Law

Case: Paul Lee Simmons, Appellant v. State of Texas, Appellee

Docket amount: 01-07-00543-CR

Workplace file amount

Re: Issue [1] was there evidence of possession of cocaine weighing 4 or more grms but less than 200 grams given the evidentiary requirements of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 35. 35(d)(1); [2] the validity of a movement to suppress based on the officer’s inability to statement all crimes committed in the jurisdiction for the magistrate, while required by simply TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 2 . 13(b)(3); and [3] the sufficiency of an indictment under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. twenty eight. 10.

Information:

The appellant contends the trial court docket erred in admitting the testimony with the State’s forensic chemist, who also performed a chemical analysis on the managed substance seen in appellant’s shirt pocket, as the chemical research was not certified at the time of the analysis; appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his action to curb because the State did not demonstrate that the arresting officer offered notice to some magistrate of offenses dedicated within the officer’s jurisdiction because required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 2 . 13(b)(3); and appellant contends that the indictment was insufficient since it contained an amendment, unfortunately he not changed in accordance with TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. twenty-eight. 10.

Research:

1) It is not necessarily sufficient to prove that a defendant a new controlled material in order to create possession.

“To prove unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the State need to prove that the accused (1) exercised treatment, custody, control, or management over the contraband, (2) was conscious of his connection with this, and (3) knew what was. inches

Reference:

53 TEX. JUR. 3d 95 Generally; “Possession” Defined (2011-2012).

A forensic analysis of physical evidence and the promoting expert testimony are inadmissible if, if the testing was done, the facility has not been duly licensed.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 38. 35(d)(1) provides that: “Except as intended by Subsection (e), a forensic examination of physical evidence underneath this article and expert account relating to the evidence are not material in a lawbreaker action in the event that, at the time of the analysis, the crime lab conducting the analysis had not been accredited by the director underneath Section 411. 0205, Govt Code. inches

Reference:

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 35. 5(d)(1) (West 2009).

Aid error, a great objection in appeal has to match the objection made at trial, or in the event the specific argument of the objection were evident from the circumstance of the doubt.

Reference:

Guevara v. Express, 97 T. W. 3 dimensional 579, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

TEX. L. APP. 3rd there’s r. 33. 1(a) (West 2009).

TEX. Ur. EVID. 103(a)(1) (West 2009).

The State gets the burden of creating that the element in question was obviously a controlled element; it is not enough for a accused to believe it was a managed substance.

The State cannot employ testimony coming from an unaccredited laboratory or perhaps by a chemist working at an unaccredited clinical to establish that a substance can be described as controlled element.

The defendant objected to admission of the testimony at trial, but did so based on a broken chain of custody, rather than under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 32. 5(d)(1).

Bottom line:

Although the felony laboratory evidence that the compound in question was cocaine must not have been admissible at trial, the failure to properly protect that concern removes that from concern upon charm.

2) A defendant can make a motion to suppress based on an officer’s failure to comply with the duties described for him under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

An police officer is required to report to a magistrate all offenses committed within just that officer’s jurisdiction.

“The officer shall: (3) offer notice to a few magistrate of all offenses fully commited within the officer’s jurisdiction, where the officer features good reason to trust there has been a violation in the penal law”

References:

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 2 . 13(b)(3) (West 2009).

A motion to suppress is nothing more than a specialized objection to the inclusiveness of facts. As such, a celebration must range from the specific grounds for the motion to suppress in trial to be able to preserve this for assessment on charm.

References:

Galitz v. State, 617 S i9000. W. second

Tweet