The following are summaries of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals in October 2023. The summaries are overviews of particular aspects of the opinions; please review the entire opinions. Subsequent histories are current as of April 1, 2024.
BURDEN OF PROOF – DUE DILIGENCE: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning grand jury foreman on the burden of proof for grand juries.
Gonzalez v. State, No. 03-22-00287-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Gonzalez was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At trial, the State called the foreman of the grand jury, who testified that the officers who presented evidence to the grand jury were uncertain of the manner and means by which the victim’s injuries were caused and that the indictment’s language reflected this uncertainty. Defense counsel attempted to question the foreman on the burden of proof required for obtaining an indictment. The State objected to that line of questioning, and the trial court sustained the objection. On appeal, Gonzalez argued that the questioning should have been allowed because, in his view, “when an indictment alleges that the object used to inflict injury on a complainant is unknown, the State must prove both that the object was unknown to the grand jury and that the grand jury exercised due diligence to ascertain its nature.”