Luz Elena D. Chapa

In this personal injury lawsuit, Jorge Flores and his family sued Drilex Systems and related companies after Flores was injured by a falling drilling bucket while working on an oil rig, alleging product defects and negligence in the equipment leased by Drilex, following a settlement with Amoco. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on issues including the exclusion of an expert witness, the jury charge, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the product liability and negligence claims. However, the court sustained the challenge to the allocation of the settlement credit, holding that under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.012(b), the credit for the full settlement amount must be applied to the total damages awarded to all claimants before apportioning the reduced judgment among the plaintiffs according to the jury's verdict percentages. The case was remanded for reformation of the judgment to reflect this proper credit application.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Appellant Keivin D. Burns was convicted of bail jumping and failure to appear and sentenced to ten years confinement after being released on bond for attempted burglary of a building. He appealed on three grounds: a Batson challenge alleging racially motivated peremptory strikes of two African-American venire members, legal insufficiency of the evidence regarding intent and the underlying offense's classification, and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The court rejected the Batson challenge because the prosecution provided uncontradicted, race-neutral explanations that the struck jurors knew the appellant or his family and one was a minister who had dealings with them, with the trial court's ruling supported by the record. On the sufficiency claims, the court found the evidence factually insufficient because the underlying offense was classified by statute as a Class A misdemeanor rather than a felony, so the conviction for felony-level bail jumping could not stand. The court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Ricky Austin Lively's conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, based on incidents where he allegedly directed his five-year-old son and niece to engage in sexual acts with each other and had inappropriate contact with his twelve-year-old step-niece. Lively appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdicts, the trial court's decision to allow his son to testify via videotape rather than live, and the admission of certain testimony during the punishment phase as hearsay. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the evidence permitted a rational jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that public policy considerations justified the video testimony to protect the child witness without violating confrontation rights, and that the challenged statements were not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

criminal law

The case involved Mary Jane Flores, who was convicted of murder after a jury trial in Bexar County for the shooting death of her roommate, Debbie Padilla. Flores claimed the death was a suicide and appealed on grounds including the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the State violated due process under Brady v. Maryland by withholding statements from a neighbor who overheard Flores urging the victim not to shoot herself just before the incident. This evidence was deemed favorable, material to guilt, and not equally available to the defense despite the defendant's discovery requests and file review. The court did not address other points of error regarding jury instructions on lesser offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In Clemments v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury of injury to a child after her four-month-old son died from head traumas, though acquitted of murder, and sentenced to forty years in prison. On appeal, she challenged the trial court's limitation of voir dire to one hour per side, which prevented her from individually questioning many potential jurors, including four who were seated. The court applied the Ratliff test and found that the appellant did not attempt to prolong voir dire, was prevented from asking relevant questions about topics like child abuse and punishment ranges, and could not examine jurors who served, leading to the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a county court judgment in a dispute over a contract to build an awning on a mobile home, where the contractor sued for the unpaid balance and the homeowner counterclaimed for breach of contract and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, along with other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of the contractor for $1,000 and denied the homeowner's claims, but the appellate court found that the trial court failed to file requested findings of fact and conclusions of law despite proper requests. The court decided to abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to enter the findings and conclusions, reasoning that the absence of these filings, combined with conflicting evidence in the record, would force the appellant to guess at the basis for the trial court's rulings, causing presumed harm.

procedurebusiness & regulatory