Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
In the Interest of W.W.-R., a Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and the trial court’s best-interest finding. The child was born with meconium positive for marijuana, Mother tested positive at delivery, and she continued to test positive for multiple substances throughout the case despite services and treatment opportunities. The court analyzed subsection (E) as requiring a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangers the child, and it held that Mother’s persistent drug use, substance-related visitation concerns, incarceration, and inability to provide or identify a safe placement satisfied that standard. The court further held that the same evidence of chronic substance abuse, instability, prior CPS history, and lack of a stable caregiving plan legally and factually supported the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"Repeated drug use becomes powerful family-law evidence when it is developed as a pattern tied to parenting risk, instability, incarceration, and the absence of a safe care plan—not just as isolated positive tests. For parents defending these claims, partial service compliance is rarely enough without documented sustained sobriety, stability, and a vetted alternative caregiver."
State of Texas v. Todd Moffat
COA01
In State of Texas v. Moffat, the First Court of Appeals reversed a habeas order that had set aside a family-violence assault conviction. The applicant argued that photographs, injury evidence, and medical proof were false or misleading because they did not match the complainant’s account and suggested a prior car accident caused the jaw fracture. The court held that false-evidence habeas relief requires more than showing inaccuracies; the challenged evidence must be materially false and material to the conviction. Here, even if some injury-related proof was misleading, it was not central to the guilty verdict because other evidence supported the assault finding. The court also rejected the actual-innocence theory because the relied-on accident evidence and expert analysis were not shown to be truly newly discovered. The court therefore reversed the habeas relief on both grounds.
Litigation Takeaway
"Not every inconsistency in photos, medical records, or witness narratives will justify reopening a judgment. For post-judgment relief, the challenged evidence must be outcome-significant, and any supposedly new evidence must truly be newly discovered rather than a stronger later attack on proof that could have been developed earlier."
Larry Wayne Richard v. The State of Texas
COA01
In Larry Wayne Richard v. The State of Texas, the First Court of Appeals held that late disclosure of evidence does not automatically require exclusion under article 39.14(a). The defendant challenged the admission of jail calls disclosed shortly before the punishment phase, but the court, relying on State v. Heath, explained that exclusion requires a willful discovery violation, express or implied, including a failure to exercise reasonable diligence. Because the record showed only late disclosure and did not establish when the State learned of the calls, what efforts it made to obtain them, or that it failed to act diligently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the recordings.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want late-produced evidence excluded, timing alone is not enough. Build a record showing possession, control, when the other side learned of the evidence, and what search or production efforts were or were not made; without proof of willful nondisclosure or lack of reasonable diligence, courts are likely to admit the evidence and consider lesser remedies instead."
Chiles v. State
COA05
In Chiles v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support a capital-murder conviction based on the deaths of a pregnant woman and her unborn child in the same criminal transaction. The court relied on recent prenatal records showing a normal pregnancy, autopsy findings showing no independent fetal abnormality, and the medical examiner’s testimony that the mother’s fatal gunshot wound cut off oxygen to the fetus and caused the fetus’s death. Although the defense highlighted uncertainty about the precise timing of fetal death based on decomposition evidence, the court treated that as a conflict for the factfinder to resolve, not a failure of proof. Applying Jackson legal-sufficiency review, the court held the State did not need to prove the exact moment of fetal death with absolute certainty so long as the cumulative medical and circumstantial evidence allowed a rational jury to find causation and that both deaths occurred during the same criminal transaction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Medical causation does not fail just because an expert cannot identify the exact minute or sequence of injury. In family-violence and expert-driven family-law disputes, a court may uphold causation findings based on the combined force of medical records, expert opinion, and circumstantial facts—especially where the record shows a normal baseline and no persuasive alternative cause."
Kadarrion Kanard Scott v. The State of Texas
COA05
In Scott v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction after holding the trial court correctly refused a manslaughter lesser-included instruction because the evidence showed the defendant pointed a gun at another person’s face and fired after a third party pushed his arm, which did not raise a rational inference of mere recklessness. More relevant for family-law practitioners, the court also upheld admission of jail calls and an absent witness’s prior statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing principles, where the evidence showed coordinated efforts to keep the subpoenaed witness from appearing or to influence her testimony. The court concluded the calls were highly probative of the witness’s absence and admissibility of her statements, and they survived Rule 403 objections. The judgment was modified and affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a key witness disappears after being subpoenaed, texts, calls, or third-party coordination showing efforts to keep that witness away can be the foundation for admitting the witness’s prior out-of-court statements. In family cases involving protective orders, custody, enforcement, or hidden assets, lawyers should build a tight timeline, preserve communications, and be prepared to prove the causal link between witness tampering and nonappearance."
In re Alex Albano Jaramillo and ATL Dump Ends, LLC
COA05
In this original proceeding, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that mandamus was proper when the trial court repeatedly heard discovery motions, made oral rulings, acknowledged that written orders were needed, and then failed for an unreasonable time to sign orders memorializing those rulings. The underlying dispute involved sensitive medical and counseling records, a motion to quash, a protective order, and an independent medical examination. The court applied settled mandamus standards, emphasizing that ruling on properly filed motions is a ministerial duty and that, once the court has orally decided the issues, indefinitely withholding written orders can amount to a failure to rule. Because the lack of signed orders prevented enforcement of subpoenas, delayed discovery, and impaired trial preparation, the relators had no adequate remedy by appeal. The court therefore conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to reduce its oral rulings to written orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases, oral discovery rulings are not enough when providers, experts, or parties need a signed order to act. If the court has heard the motion, ruled from the bench, and unreasonable delay in signing an order is stalling discovery or trial preparation, build a record of presentment, proposed orders, follow-up requests, and concrete prejudice—then mandamus may be the only effective remedy."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived his Rules 403 and 404(b) complaints about pornography-related search-history, image, and video evidence by later telling the trial court he had 'No objection' when the same exhibits were reoffered for publication to the jury. Although defense counsel had initially made specific objections and obtained a running objection, the trial court later required any renewed offer of the exhibits to be brought back for a further ruling after additional predicate was laid. Because counsel did not renew the objections at that later stage—and instead affirmatively accepted the evidence—the court found error was not preserved under Rule 33.1(a). The court also explained that, even if preserved, the trial court would not have abused its discretion because the challenged evidence closely tracked the charged step-family relationship and was probative of intent rather than mere character conformity.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not bulletproof. If the court defers, conditions, or stages admission of evidence, treat each later offer, publication, or reuse as a fresh preservation moment. Never say 'No objection' to evidence you may want to challenge on appeal; instead, renew the prior objection and obtain a ruling."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a party waives an evidentiary complaint when, after previously making Rule 403 and 404(b) objections and obtaining a running objection, counsel later says "No objection" at the point the trial court requires the evidence to be re-offered for publication to the jury. The trial court had deferred final use of certain electronic evidence and expressly required a later ruling before the jury could see it. Because defense counsel affirmatively stated "No objection" at that later offer, the court held error was not preserved under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The court also stated that, even if preserved, the challenged evidence was sufficiently probative and closely connected to the charged conduct to survive Rule 403 review.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas trials, preservation is stage-specific: an earlier objection—even a running objection—may not protect you if the court defers admission, publication, or final ruling. When the exhibit comes back up, renew the objection on the record and do not say "No objection" unless you intend to waive the issue."
Koorasingh v. State
COA05
In Koorasingh v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld convictions for child sexual assault and continuous family violence after the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the State did not prove the exact offense date alleged and did not separately prove the prosecutions were timely. The court applied the standard Texas "on or about" rule, holding that the State need not prove the precise date in the indictment so long as the evidence shows the conduct occurred before indictment and within any applicable limitations period. The court also held that limitations is an affirmative defense, not an element the State must prove in its case-in-chief, and because sexual assault of a child had no limitations period here, the absence of separate limitations proof did not undermine the convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Approximate dates usually do not defeat a case by themselves. If timing is not a statutory element or a properly raised defense, courts will treat date imprecision as a credibility issue rather than a legal-sufficiency failure. In family law cases involving abuse, family violence, or delayed disclosures, lawyers should distinguish between facts that must be proved and surplus timing language, while preserving true timeliness defenses expressly when timing actually matters."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived prior Rule 403 and 404(b) complaints about digital child-sex evidence when, after obtaining a running objection, he later said "No objection" after the trial court required the exhibits to be reoffered before publication to the jury. The court reasoned that the earlier running objection did not preserve error indefinitely once the evidentiary posture changed and the court required a renewed offer and ruling. The court also explained that, even if preserved, the search-history and image evidence was sufficiently probative because it mirrored the alleged familial dynamic and was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not self-executing forever. If the court requires an exhibit to be reoffered, family law trial counsel must renew the objection or expressly state that the prior objection continues; saying "No objection" will likely waive the issue on appeal."