overruling Maldonado v. State, 528 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), which had held State must raise issue of standing at trial to argue it on appeal, as unsupported by any precedent and clearly wrong
How later courts described this case
- overruling Maldonado v. State, 528 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), which had held State must raise issue of standing at trial to argue it on appeal, as unsupported by any precedent and clearly wrong
- “The State does not have the burden of listing or verbalizing in the trial court every possible basis for holding a search legal or else waive that basis . . . . ”
- state does not have burden of asserting every possible basis for upholding legality of search
- "Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts,"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Hernandez v. State, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180 (1988)
“Having thus examined Sullivan in light of the afore-discussed federal cases, we find that Maldonado should only be overruled to the extent that it is in conflict with Steagald [v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) ].
The opinion
ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s decision to overrule Maldonado v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 234 . The majority opinion erroneously asserts that Maldonado gave no reason or authority for requiring the State to challenge in the trial court the defendant’s standing to contest a search and seizure. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), in the very same passage quoted by the majority, states the reason and stands as authority for the holding of Maldonado :
“[I]t is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy.”
As was stated in Maldonado , the State should not be allowed to contest the defendant’s standing for the first time on appeal because this deprives the defendant of the opportunity to present evidence showing standing. If the State had raised the issue at trial, appellant in this case would have had an opportunity to present evidence on the issue. The majority deny him that opportunity and in doing so deprive him of due process of law.
I respectfully dissent.
ROBERTS and PHILLIPS, JJ., join.