### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00790-CR
Ex par te Teres a Karen Voges

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-2000-939B, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. B ENDER, JUDGE PRESIDING

Teresa Kare

n Voge s a ppl i ed f ora w r it o f ha be as co r

pu s s ee kin g r elie f fr o m a

judg ment of con tem pt ren dere d b y th e C om al Cou n ty Cou rt a t L aw. The w rit i ssued, but relie f was deni ed f oll owi ng a he ari ng. W e wi l l af f i rm the d i strict court’s

order. Voges wa s t r ied fo rdr iving wh ile int o xic at ed in the Comal

County Court at Law. On t he day Voges’s trial

began , the Stat e fi

le d a mo t io n in

lim ine ask ing t hat t he pa rt ies, w itnes ses, and at t o rne ys be

i ns tructed not to ref er to o relic it t es t imo ny r eg ar din g a ny bo dy c av it y se ar ch , st r ip sea rc h, or any other type of searc h of Vog es withou t first o btainin g a ru li ng out side the jury’s pres ence on

the a dm i ssi bi l i ty of the testim

ony . The motion wasgran ted. Voges testi f

i ed on her own b ehalf

at the tri al , and a rec ordof her

testim ony was in tro duced as an

ex hibit at t he wr it hear ing. D ur ing a r ambling answe r t o a que st ion r ega rd ing t he ar re st ingoff

ic er’s conduct at the poli ce station, Voges stated t ha t she “w as st r ip searched a nd asked to re move my t amp o n w it h my ba r e h an d. ” T he pr o se cu t o ro bje ct ed at Vo ge s’ s me nt io n o f a s t r ip sea rc h, but Voges continued to testify even as t he pr os ecu t or was voicing his o bject ion. The court1 Voges was acq uitted of the

driving while int

oxicate d charge at a s econd trial. 2 su bse qu en t ly

decl ared a m

is trial on the Stat e’s m

ot ion, dism

is sed the j ury , a nd he ld V o ge s in con tem pt. 1 The written judgmen t o f contempt stat es: [D ]u ring her t est imony the Defend ant intent iona l ly vi ol at ed t he Co ur t ’s o rd er by pr ese nt ingtestim

ony to the jury

that she had b een

st rip se ar ched by the jailer s and forced to remove h

er tampon wi

th her bare h

and, or wo rd s to th at eff ect. Her t est imony was not in

response to t he question of her attorney an d she conti

nued to proffe rth e te sti

mon y de sp i te a n ob j ecti on l odg ed b y th e S tate’s at t or ney. T he test imony was in direct vi olation of the Court’s Order in Lim in e and h er att orney stated o n the record that he had info rme d he r n o t t o t es t ify to such m

atter s wi thout perm i ss i on of th e C our t. Voges contends the contempt order vi olated her due process

ri ghts be caus e the

re is no evi dence that she

in tentional ly violated the court’s or der in li mi ne. This hab eas corpus pr oc eed ing is a col l ateral attack on

the c ontem

pt j udgm en t. Ex part e Rohleder , 4 24 S .W. 2d 8 91, 892 (T ex. 1967) . The burden

wa s o n V o ge s t o es t ab lish t ha t t he co nt emp t o r de rwa s vo id, an d n o t mer ely voida ble. In re Sca riati , 9 88 S .W. 2d 2 70, 272 (T ex. A pp. —A mari l l o, orig. proceedin

g). The hab eas corpus cou

rt m ay not weigh t he evide nce t o d et er mine whet her it p re po nder at es a gainst t he j udgm en t, but may tr eat t he co nt emp t o r de ras vo id o nly i f the evi den ce c oncl usi ve l y establ i shes that f

act. Ex parte Linder , 783 S.W .2d 754 , 760 (Tex. A pp.—D al l as 1 990, ori

g. procee di

ng) . The parties agree that the di spositi ve i ssue i s whether Vogesha d b ee n t o ld befo re she testifi ed that the courthad ordere d he

r not to me

ntion the stri p se arch . Ab sen

t such knowl edge , there would be no su pport f or the f i ndi ng th at she “ i nten tion al l y vi ola ted” the order i

n l i m i ne .3 The Honorable B renda Freem an, Judge of the

Comal County Court at Law, t estif ie d at the wr it hea

rin g. She acknowledged durin g questioni

ng by Voges’s atto rney

that she d id no t personally advise Vo ges of t he o rd er in li mine or instr uct her not t o ment ion t he st rip se ar ch. Foll owing up on thi

s, counsel f or th e S tate ask ed J udg e Fr eeman, “But you d id inform Mr . G re ene [Vo ges’s tria

l attorney ] an d asked [s i c] h

i m wh ethe r o r n ot h e notif

ie d hi s cl ie nt?” The judge answered, “A

bsol utely .” “And , ” a sk ed t he pr o se cu t o r , “d id he ha ve an y he si tation w he n h e tol d y ou that he told

her not to viola

te the orde

r?” “N ot at al l ,” answe

red J udge Fre em an . Voges testifi

ed th at sh e w as

n ot pres en

t wh en th e m oti on i n l i m i n e w as pr es en ted to t he court for a ruli

ng. She sa

id t hat Greene told h

er bef ore she testif

ie d that t he stri

p search “

was irre levant to the case” an

d not t o men

tion i t. She acknowledge d

violating counsel ’s i

nstruct ions, but testifi ed that Greene nev

er to ld h er that she was un

der a court order not t o ment ion t he st rip se ar ch. Vog es sta ted th at sh e w oul

d n ot h av e v i ol ate d th e c our t’s ord er h ad sh e k n own of i t. A re ading of the trial

record refl ects that after Voges m ade the al le gedl y c ontemptuous remarks, Jud ge Fr eeman a ske d co unse l, “Mr . G re ene, did yo u inst ru ct your client not t o refer to t hat st r ip sea rch ?” Coun sel repl i ed, “ Yes , I did, Judge.” C ounsel was not e

xpres sl y as ke d a nd di d n ot sta te that he had inf

or med Voge s of the c our t’s or der . G iven the co nt ext of t he co ur t ’s qu est ion and cou nsel’s an sw er , ho we ve r , it wa s a r ea so na ble inferenc e t hat he had do ne s o . G re ene did no t t es t ify at th e w ri t he ari ng. A s a n of f i cer of th e c our t, he c oul d h av e p rov i de d p rob ati

v e ev i den ce

as to precis el y w hat Voges had be en told by hi m regardi ng the order in

li mi ne.4 On this record, we cannot stat e that Voges carried her bur den o f est ablishing tha t t he contempt jud gme nt is without evi

dentia ry s upport and v

oid. The di strict court ’s order deny in g reli ef is aff irm ed.

__________________________________________ Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: June 14, 2001 Do No t Publis

h