DocketNumber： 14-02-01173-CR
Filed Date： 6/24/2004
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/15/2015
Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Majority and Concurring Opinions Issued January 15, 2004, Withdrawn; and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed June 24, 2004.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).