Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 S.W.3d 581

Badgett v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided September 20, 2001

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 2001-09-20

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 2014

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[A] defendant is not required to have the evidence which he sought to suppress admitted in order for the court of appeals to address the merits of an appeal challenging denial of a pretrial motion to suppress.... [Ajppellate courts must use a two step inquiry when deciding whether to address the merits of a claim regarding the trial court’s denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence prior to a guilty plea. First, the appellate court must identify “the fruits” that the trial court held would not be suppressed. Second, the appellate court must determine that these fruits have “somehow been used” by the State. If it is not clear from the testimony and exhibits what “the fruits” are, then the appellate court need not address the merits of the claim. Likewise, if the fruits have not “somehow been used” by the State, then the appellate court need not address the merits of the claim.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hudson v. State

Relies on Stephenson v. State · Gonzales v. State · Webber v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-09-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

EDELMAN, Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2If it is not clear from the testimony and exhibits of a suppression hearing what the “fruits” are that the appellant sought to have suppressed, the appellate court need not address the merits of the claim. Gonzales v. State, 966 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). In this case, because neither the complaint nor any other evidence of the existence or outcome of any blood test results was admitted into evidence2 at the suppression hearing and because the record of that hearing contains no other evidence identifying, or establishing the inculpatory nature of, any fruits of the challenged blood sample, we lack a sufficient record to address the merits of the claim. Accordingly, I would overrule appellant’s fourth point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶3. An affidavit does not constitute evidence in a case unless it has been introduced as such at a hearing. Stephenson v. State, 494 S.W.2d 900, 909-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). Thus, unless an affidavit or other document in the clerk's record has been offered and admitted into evidence, it cannot be considered on appeal. Webber v. State, 21 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Tex.App.— Austin 2000, pet. ref’d).

/79/sw3d/581 · .json · Public domain