Page 80 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been
different. Here, the record does not reflect that Rubios disciplinary report was withheld from Baldez. Although
Baldez contends he did not receive Rubios records from the Commission of Law Enforcement Officer Standards
and Education until the second day of trial, Baldez attempted to cross-examine Rubio concerning the report on
the first day of trial, and then made a bill of exception during which the report was admitted for purposes of
appeal on the second day of trial. Therefore, Baldez has not shown that the State suppressed the evidence. (Brady
claim fails where evidence is turned over in time for defendant to use it in his defense); see also Marchbanks v.
State, 341 S.W.3d 559, 563-64 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (no Brady violation where defendant
became aware of withheld evidence during trial). In any event, as discussed above, evidence of Rubios prior
disciplinary proceeding was not admissible as impeachment evidence under Rule 608(b); thus, the prosecution
had no duty to turn over the report. ([T]he prosecution has no duty to turn over evidence that would be
inadmissible at trial.).

Even assuming the disciplinary report was admissible, Baldez has not shown that there is a reasonable
probability the outcome of the trial would have been different. This was not a case involving a swearing match
between Baldez and Officer Rubio in which their versions of events varied. See Lopez, 18 S.W.3d at 225
(defendant had heightened need to impeach credibility of accuser where there was no corroborating evidence and
trial amounted to a swearing match between the two). As previously discussed, Rubio had probable cause to
stop Baldez for driving without illuminated headlights at night. Moreover, Rubios testimony that Baldez
appeared intoxicated based on his bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of alcohol emanating from his
breath was corroborated by the results of the intoxilyzer test showing that Baldezs blood alcohol concentration
was more than twice the legal limit. Given the other uncontroverted evidence of his intoxication, Baldez cannot
show how impeaching Rubios character for truthfulness would have most likely produced a different outcome
at trial. Because Baldez cannot demonstrate that he meets the three-pronged Brady test, we conclude Baldez has
no basis on which to demand a new trial.

(citations omitted)

Baldez v. State, No. 04-11-00615-CR, Ct. App. San Antonio, July 11, 2012.

ARREST JUVENILES MIRANDA WARNINGS QUESTIONING OF A JUVENILE (13 Y.O.A.).

J. D. B. was a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student attending class at Smith Middle School in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina when he was removed from his classroom by a uniformed police officer, escorted to a closed door
conference room, and questioned by police for at least half an hour.

This was the second time that police questioned J. D. B. in the span of a week. Five days earlier, two home break-
ins occurred, and various items were stolen. Police stopped and questioned J. D. B. after he was seen behind a
residence in the neighborhood where the crimes occurred. That same day, police also spoke to J. D. B.s
grandmother his legal guardianas well as his aunt. Police later learned that a digital camera matching the
description of one of the stolen items had been found at J. D. B.s middle school and seen in J. D. B.s possession.
A juvenile investigator with the local police department who had been assigned to the case, went to the school to
question J. D. B. Upon arrival, the officer informed the school resource officer, the assistant principal, and an
administrative intern that he was there to question J. D. B. about the break-ins. Although the investigating officer
asked the school administrators to verify J. D. B.s date of birth, address, and parent contact information from
school records, neither the police officers nor the school administrators contacted J. D. B.s grandmother.

The uniformed school resource officer interrupted J. D. B.s afternoon social studies class, removed J. D.
B. from the classroom, and escorted him to a closed door school conference room. There, J. D. B. was met by

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 73 2013 Edition