Page 86 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

And, perhaps most importantly, appellant admitted that he put logs in that very same stretch of road only
months before to intentionally create an obstruction for the Gomezes and make them slow down. This prior act
of putting obstructions in the road with the intent to harm the Gomezes was strong circumstantial evidence
rebutting the accident theory.

The trial judge in this case was not required to believe appellants explanation that the roofing screws
must have appeared on the county road accidently, and the trial judge could find criminal intent from
appellants prior similar act of putting obstructions in the road to slow his neighbors down. We agree with the
court of appeals that, although some testimony supported an inference that the Gomezes could have picked up
the screws in their tires elsewhere, it was the trial judges job to resolve the conflicting evidence, and he
determined that appellant intentionally damaged property by throwing screws and nails into the road causing
flat tires. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

th
Carrizales v. State, No. PD-0320-13 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 11 , 2013).

FALSE TESTIMONY. KNOWINGLY? MATERIAL?

In this habeas corpus case, Defendant was convicted of murder and filed his writ alleging a due process
violation based, in part, upon his claim that the State failed to disclose in advance a key witness and, further, that
the witness lied when he denied having hallucinations and delusions in the past. The Court reviewing the habeas
application found that the State unknowingly presented false testimony when Nathan Adams testified that he did
not suffer from auditory or visual hallucinations. The judge also found that Mr. Adams was a key witness in
establishing applicants intent to murder.

The Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the habeas judges factual findings that Adamss (the witness)
testimony about his lack of delusions was false, but concluded that applicant defendant) failed to prove that
Adamss false testimony was material, i.e., reasonably likely to have affected the jurys verdict.

The evidence indicated that the Defendant apparently killed the victim believing that the victim had
absconded with drugs or money belonging to the Defendant. The witness Adams met the defendant in jail and
testified as to details of the murder related to the witness by the defendant.

Generally, our review of a habeas corpus claim involves a two-pronged inquiry. First, we decide if the
applicant has established a cognizable constitutional violation. Second, if a constitutional violation is shown, we
determine whether the applicant was harmed by the error. An applicant demonstrates such harm with proof by
a preponderance of the evidence that the error contributed to his conviction or punishment. However, habeas
claims challenging the use of false testimony are reviewed under a slightly different analysis. The States use of
material false testimony violates a defendants due-process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution. Therefore, in any habeas claim alleging the use of material false testimony,
this Court must determine (1) whether the testimony was, in fact, false, and, if so, (2) whether the testimony was
material. The second prong in a false-testimony claim is materiality, not harm. Only the use of material false
testimony amounts to a due-process violation. And false testimony is material only if there is a reasonable
likelihood that it affected the judgment of the jury.

Thus, an applicant who proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, a due-process violation stemming
from a use of material false testimony necessarily proves harm because a false statement is material only if there
is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony affected the judgment of the jury. The Court has consistently
held that testimony need not be perjured to constitute a due process violation; rather, it is sufficient that the
testimony was false. Neither a witnesss nor the States good or bad faith is relevant to a false-testimony due
process error analysis. The proper question in a false-testimony claim is whether the particular testimony, taken
as a whole, gives the jury a false impression.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 79 2015 Edition