Brennan, Ryan v. State

Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Majority and Concurring Opinions Issued January 15, 2004, Withdrawn; and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed June 24, 2004

 

Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Majority and Concurring Opinions Issued January 15, 2004, Withdrawn; and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed June 24, 2004.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-02-01173-CR

____________

 

RYAN BRENNAN, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

___________________________________________________

 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1119468

 

___________________________________________________

 

S U B S T I T U T E D   C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

I  respectfully concur in the court=s judgment, but write separately to clarify one point.


Although the majority opinion addresses appellant=s failure to identify the evidence obtained as a result of any alleged illegal act, it does not discuss one of the reasons identification of the evidence is so important.  The Texas exclusionary rule requires the exclusion of evidence Aobtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America.@  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004).  This rule imposes serious consequences for any illegal acquisition of evidence and thus operates to discourage searches and seizures in violation of the law.  Macklin v. State, 861 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref=d) (stating that entire purpose of exclusionary rule is to discourage illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment by making evidence so seized inadmissible).  Evidence should be excluded once a causal connection between the illegality and the evidence is established.  Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 871, 872 n.15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  When, as in this case, the accused has not identified any evidence as fruit of an illegal search or seizure, he cannot reasonably expect the reviewing court to determine whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the causal connection between any alleged illegal acts and the acquisition of evidence.

 

/s/        Kem Thompson Frost

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed June 22, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Frost, and Seymore.  (Edelman, J. majority.)

Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).