Texas Criminal Defense Cases
Texas criminal law cases covering search and seizure, DWI, self-defense, sentencing, and constitutional rights. Key appellate decisions for criminal defense practitioners.
State v. Villarreal
475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that mandatory blood draws in DWI cases under the Texas Transportation Code's implied consent provisions violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant. The court ruled that the implied consent statute does not create an exception to the warrant requirement and that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not automatically create exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw.
Morales v. State
557 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed when a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense and clarified the low threshold for raising the defense. The court held that a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, from any source, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that would support the defense — even if that evidence is weak, contradicted, or not credible.
Martinez v. State
614 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. App. 2020)
The court addressed the validity of a DWI blood warrant and the sufficiency of probable cause affidavits. The court held that a blood warrant affidavit must contain specific articulable facts establishing probable cause that the suspect was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated — not merely conclusory statements.
Lopez v. State
651 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. App. 2022)
The court addressed whether a traffic stop was unlawfully extended when an officer continued to detain the driver after completing the purpose of the original stop. The court held that once the reason for a traffic stop is resolved, the officer must allow the driver to leave unless reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity exists.
In re Commitment of Johnson
645 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App. 2022)
The court addressed the scope of the Castle Doctrine under Texas Penal Code § 9.32, specifically whether the presumption of reasonableness applies when the defendant was the initial aggressor who later withdrew from the confrontation. The court held that the Castle Doctrine presumption does not apply to initial aggressors, but an initial aggressor who clearly withdraws and communicates withdrawal may regain the right to use defensive force.
Get Weekly Case Updates
New case summaries and legal research tips delivered to your inbox every week. Free for Texas attorneys.