## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 2 0 6

- 1 0

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

v

.

P A U L D A V I D R O B I N S O N

, A p p e l l e e

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E T E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F R E E S T O N E C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h H E R V E Y

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

I j o i n t h e m a

j o r i t y o p i n i o n

. I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y o n l y t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e s h i f t i n g b u r d e n s

a t a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s h e a r i n g f r o m t h o s e s h o u l d e r e d b y t h e p r o p o n e n t o f e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

.

I n a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s h e a r i n g

, t h e m o v a n t i s a s s e r t i n g s o m e s o r t o f i l l e g a l c o n d u c t

,

p e r h a p s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o r p e r h a p s a s t a t u t o r y v i o l a t i o n

. T h e l a w s t a r t s

w i t h t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f p r o p e r a n d l a w f u l c o n d u c t

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i t a s s u m e s t h a t t h e p o l i c e

h a v e a c t e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a l l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s i n m a k i n g a nRobinson C oncurr ing opinion Pag e 2

a r r e s t

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t s h o w s t h a t a n a r r e s t w a s 1

i l l e g a l l y m a d e

, e v i d e n c e w a s i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d

, a n d s o f o r t h

. O n c e t h e d e f

e n d a n t p r o d u c e s

s o m e e v i d e n c e o f i m p r o p r i e t y o r i l l e g a l i t y

, t h e n t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e S t a t e t o r e b u t t h a t

s h o w i n g

. N o r m a l l y

, t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n

, a s w e l l a s p r o d u c t i o n

, r e s t s o n t h e m o v a n t

. 2

H e m u s t p r o v e h i s c a s e t h a t t h e n o r m a l a n d p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s w e r e n o t f o l l o w e d i n a

p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

. H o w e v e r

, w i t h c e r t a i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m s

, o n c e t h e m o v a n t h a s p r o d u c e d 3

s o m e e v i d e n c e t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f p r o p e r p o l i c e c o n d u c t

, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t n o t

o n l y r e b u t t h e m o v a n t ’ s e v i d e n c e

, b u t s h o u l d e r t h e u l t i m a t e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n

. 4

See R ussell v. State , 717 S.W .2d 7, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“As the movant in a 1

motion to s uppress e vidence , a def endant must produce evidenc e that def eats the pr esumption of

proper police conduc t and there fore shifts the burden of proof to the State.” ), disapproved in part

on other grounds by Handy v. State , 189 S.W .3d 296, 299 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also

Ford v. State , 158 S.W .3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“To suppr ess evidenc e on an

alleg ed F ourth Amendment violation, the def endant be ars the initial burde n of produc ing

evidenc e that re buts the presumption of prope r police c onduct.”)

.

See P ham v. State , 175 S.W .3d 767, 773-74 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (“We have long 2

held that ‘the bur den of pe rsuasion is proper ly and per manently place d upon the shoulders of the

moving pa

rty . When a cr iminal defenda nt claims the rig ht to protection under a n exclusionary

rule of e vidence , it is hi s task to prove his ca se.’” ) (quoting Mattei v. State , 455 S.W .2d 761, 766

(Tex. Crim. App. 1970) which in turn was quoting Rogers v. U nited States , 330 F.2d 535 ( 5th

Cir. 1964)).

See R ogers , 330 F.2d a t 542; see also United States v . W aldrop , 404 F.3d 365, 368 ( 5th 3

Cir. 2005) (“A defe ndant normally bear s the burden of

proving by

a pre pondera

nce of the

evidenc e that the c halleng ed sea rch or seizure was unc onstitut ional.”); United States v. Ev ans

, 572 F.2d 455, 486 ( 5th Cir. 1978) (“The burden is on the movant to make specific fac tual

alleg ations of illeg ality , to produce evidenc e, and to pe rsuade the cour t that the evidenc e should

be suppre ssed.”)

.

See, e .g., United States v. de la Fue nte , 548 F.2d 528, 533- 34 (5th Cir. 1977) (setting 4

out ge nera l rule that the movant be ars bur den of pe rsuasion as we ll as production subject to

cer tain well-de fined e x ceptions, including (1) wa rra ntless arre st, (2) a de fenda nt’s waiver

of his

rig ht ag ainst self-incr imination in t he conte x t of a c ustodial interrog ation, and (3) whenRobinson C oncurr ing opinion Pag e 3

F o r e x a m p l e

, i n t h i s c a s e

, M r

. R o b i n s o n c o u l d m e e t h i s i n i t i a l b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g a n

i l l e g a l a r r e s t b y p r o d u c i n g s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a t ( 1 ) h e w a s a r r e s t e d

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e p o l i c e d i d n o t

h a v e a w a r r a n t

. T h e b u r d e n w o u l d t h e n s h i f t t o t h e S t a t e t o s h o w e i t h e r ( 1 ) t h e p o l i c e d i d

, 5

i n f a c t

, o b t a i n a w a r r a n t

, o r ( 2 ) t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h

. H e r e

, h o w e v e r

, 6

t h e S t a t e s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h i s w a s a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t

, t h u s a c c e p t i n g t h e b u r d e n s o f

p r o d u c t i o n a n d p r o o f t o s h o w t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a r r e s t

.

M r

. R o b i n s o n a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n w h o w i t h d r e w h i s b l o o d s p e c i m e n a t t h e

h o s p i t a l w a s n o t a q u a l i f i e d t e c h n i c i a n u n d e r T e x a s l a w

. H e h a d t h e b u r d e n

, t h e r e f o r e

, t o 7

p r o d u c e s o m e a f

f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e r s o n w h o w i t h d r e w h i s b l o o d w a s n o t

q u a l i f i e d

. I f h e m a d e a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e p e r s o n w a s n o t q u a l i f i e d

, t h e n t h e

b u r d e n w o u l d s h i f

t t o t h e S t a t e t o r e b u t t h a t s h o w i n g

. B u t t h e b u r d e n o n t h i s s t a t u t o r y

8

c o m p l i a n c e i s s u e i s n o t o n e o f t h o s e s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m s i n w h i c h t h e S t a t e m u s t

s h o u l d e r t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f o n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t m a k e s a n i n i t i a l s h o w i n g

. H e r e

, t h e n o r m a l

p r e s u m p t i o n o f p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s a n d c o n d u c t t h r u s t s b o t h t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d t h e

defe ndant establishes e x istence of illega l wiretap; in ea ch of those c ases, the g overnme nt must

shoulder the bur den of pr oof once the def endant pr oduces e vidence to support his claim).

Russell , 717 S.W .2d at 9. 5

Id. at 9-10. 6

State v. Robinson , 325 S.W .3d 212, 215 (Tex. App.–Waco 2010). 7

See R oquemore v. State , 60 S.W .3d 862, 869-70 (Te x . Crim. App. 2001) (“[O]nce the 8

defe ndant produc es evide nce of a [specific statutory ] vi olation, the burden the n shifts to the St ate

to prove c ompliance with [that section].”).Robinson C oncurr ing opinion Pag e 4

u l t i m a t e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n u p o n t h e m o v a n t

. T h i s i s a s e n s i b l e p o l i c y b e c a u s e

, i n t h e 9

v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s

, a p e r s o n w h o d r a w s b l o o d i n a h o s p i t a l i s l i k e l y t o b e q u a l i f i e d t o d o

s o

. W h e n w e g o t o t h e e m e r g e n c y r o o m a n d h a v e b l o o d d r a w n

, w e d o n o t n o r m a l l y a s k t h e

t e c h n i c i a n w h o d r a w s i t i f h e i s q u a l i f i e d

. A s r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e

, w e p r e s u m e t h a t t h e

h o s p i t a l i s u n l i k e l y t o e m p l o y u n q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l

. T h e l a w

, l i k e r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e

,

p r e s u m e s t h a t p e o p l e d o t h e i r j o b s p r o p e r l y a n d t h a t t h o s e w h o d o a c e r t a i n j o b a r e

, i n f a c t

,

q u a l i f i e d t o d o t h a t j o b

. T h e r e m a y b e i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a r o g u e “ F r a n k A b a g n a l e

J r

. ” i m p o s t e r s n e a k s i n t o t h e h o s p i t a l a n d t a k e s o v e r t h e t e c h n i c i a n ’ s j o b

, b u t t h e s e i n s t a n c e s 1 0

a r e s o u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e l a w c a s t s b o t h t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d p e r s u a s i o n o n t h e m o v a n t

w h o i s c h a l l e n g i n g t h e n o r m a l a n d p r o b a b l e r o u t i n e

.

I n t h i s c a s e

, M r

. R o b i n s o n d i d n o t p r o d u c e e v e n a s c i n t i l l a o f e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e r s o n

w h o d r e w h i s b l o o d w a s u n q u a l i f i e d

. T h e o n l y w i t n e s s w h o t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g w a s

O f f i c e r V e r c h e r

, t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r

, a n d h e d i d n o t k n o w p r e c i s e l y w h o d r e w t h e b l o o d a t

t h e h o s p i t a l

. A s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s s t a t e d

,

A s f o r t h e p e r s o n w h o d r e w R o b i n s o n ’ s b l o o d

, [ O f f i c e r ] V e r c h e r s a i d h e d i d

n o t k n o w w h o t h e p e r s o n w a s o r r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e p e r s o n l o o k e d l i k e

. I t w a s

h i s f i r s t t i m e t o t a k e a s u s p e c t t o a h o s p i t a l t o h a v e b l o o d d r a w n

. H e d i d n o t

w r i t e d o w n t h e p e r s o n ’ s n a m e

, a n d h e d o e s n o t r e m e m b e r w h i c h a r m t h e b l o o d

See State v . Kelly , 204 S.W .3d 808, 819 & n.22 ( Tex. Crim . App. 2006) (mova nt in 9

motion to s uppress is “the pa rty with the burden of

proof [who] assumes the risk of

nonpersua sion”; thus it was defenda nt’s burden to produc e evide nce to support a finding that she

did not consent to blood draw take n in hospital).

See C A T C H M E I F Y O U C A N (Dre amworks 2002) , the movie base d on the re al life story 1 0

of F rank Abag nale, Jr., who succe ssfully impersonated a

Pan-Am pilot, doctor, and pr osecutor.Robinson C oncurr ing opinion Pag e 5

w a s d r a w n f

r o m

, w h o p r e p a r e d t h e s i t e f o r t h e d r a w

, o r h o w t h e s i t e w a s

p r e p a r e d

. 1 1

T h a t t e s t i m o n y c e r t a i n l y d o e s n o t s h o w ( o r e v e n s u g g e s t ) t h a t t h e p e r s o n w h o d r e w M r

.

R o b i n s o n ’ s b l o o d w a s u n q u a l i f i e d

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h e n n o t e d

, t h a t

, o n r e d i r e c t

, O f f i c e r

V e r c h e r

s a i d t h a t a “ n u r s e ” i n t h e e m e r g e n c y r o o m t o o k R o b i n s o n ' s b l o o d s a m p l e

. B u t

o n r e

- c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, V e r c h e r t h e n a d m i t t e d t h a t h i s r e p o r t s t a t e s t h a t a n

“ e m e r g e n c y r o o m t e c h n i c i a n ” s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d R o b i n s o n ’ s b l o o d s p e c i m e n

.

I n r e s p o n s e t o w h e t h e r t h a t e m e r g e n c y r o o m t e c h n i c i a n w a s t h e s a m e p e r s o n

a s t h e “ n u r s e ” w h o t o o k t h e b l o o d o r w a s j u s t s o m e o n e w h o w i t n e s s e d i t

,

V e r c h e r s a i d n o n r e s p o n s i v e l y

, “ T h e s a m e g u y t h a t t o o k t h e b l o o d h a s t o s i g n

o f f a n d s e a l i t a n d p u t i t b a c k i n t h e v i l e [ s i c ]

. ” V e r c h e r d i d n o t r e c a l l w h e t h e r

t h e p e r s o n d i d a n y t h i n g w i t h t h e t u b e o f b l o o d

, s u c h a s s w i r l i n g i t f i v e t i m e s

. 1 2

W h i l e t h a t t e s t i m o n y m i g h t r a i s e s o m e i s s u e a s t o w h e t h e r i t w a s a n u r s e o r a n e m e r g e n c y

r o o m t e c h n i c i a n w h o d r e w t h e b l o o d

, i t d o e s n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y s h o w t h a t e i t h e r o f t h e m w a s

u n q u a l i f i e d t o p e r f

o r m t h e j o b

. A b s e n t e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y

, r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e a n d t h e

l a w p r e s u m e t h a t n u r s e s a n d e m e r g e n c y r o o m t e c h n i c i a n s a r e q u a l i f i e d t o d o t h e i r j o b s

.

I n s u m

, t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t s o m e u n q u a l i f i e d i m p o s t e r d r e w M r

. R o b i n s o n ’ s

b l o o d

. T h u s

, t h e b u r d e n n e v e r s h i f t e d t o t h e S t a t e t o r e b u t a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f i m p r o p e r

o r u n l a w f

u l c o n d u c t c o n c e r n i n g t h e b l o o d d r a w i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

.

M r

. R o b i n s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n t o s h o w c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t e

Robinson , 325 S.W .3d at 216. 1 1

Id. at 216-17. 1 2Robinson C oncurr ing opinion Pag e 6

s t a t u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e b l o o d d r a w

. I n d e e d i t d o e s

– a t t r i a l

. A s t h e p r o p o n e n t o f e v i d e n c e 1 3

a t t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e m u s t f u l f i l l a l l r e q u i r e d e v i d e n t i a r y p r e d i c a t e s a n d f o u n d a t i o n s

. T h u s

, a t

t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o o f f e r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e b l o o d w a s d r a w n b y a q u a l i f i e d

p e r s o n b e f

o r e e v i d e n c e o f t h e b l o o d

, t h e b l o o d t e s t

, a n d t h e b l o o d t e s t r e s u l t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e

.

I t s b u r d e n a t t r i a l i s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f i t s e v i d e n c e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e

e v i d e n c e

. 1 4

A t a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s h e a r i n g

, h o w e v e r

, i t i s t h e b u r d e n o f t h e m o v a n t ( t h e p e r s o n

w h o o p p o s e s u s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e ) t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o t b e a d m i t t e d

b e c a u s e o f u n l a w f

u l c o n d u c t

. A n d M r

. R o b i n s o n f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y b o t h h i s b u r d e n o f 1 5

p r o d u c t i o n a n d h i s b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n

.

I j o i n t h e m a

j o r i t y o p i n i o n

.

F i l e d : M a r c h 1 6

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h

See T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 724.017(a) (“O nly a phy sician, qualified te chnician, c hemist, 1 3

reg istered pr ofessional nurse , or license d vocational nur se may take a blood specimen a

t the

reque st or order

of a pe ace office r under

this chapter.” ).

T E X

. R. E V I D . 104(a)

. 1 4

See State v . Kelly , 204 S.W .3d 808, 819 & n.22 ( Tex. Crim . App. 2006) (sta ting that 1 5

the par ty with the burden of

proof a ssumes the risk of nonper suasion).