NO. 07-06 -006 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B SEPTEM BER28, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ FRANCISCO MUR O, JR., APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; TH NO . 51, 418- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Franci sc o M uro, J r. , app eal s h is co nv ic ti on for the off ense of poss ess ion
o f a co n t ro ll e d su b s t a n c e a n d se n t e n c e o f two ye a rs co n f in e m e n tin a st a t e ja il fa c il it y. App ellantconte nds th at th e trial court erred in de nying his req uestfor a jury instructio n in
c om pl i an c e w i th a rti c l e 38 .2 3 of t he Te x as C od e of C r i mi na l P roc ed ure. W e affi r m.2 Back g ro und
On the m orning o f

March 1 6, 200 5, a convenien ce store clerk a rriv ed at th e store to be g in her

preparati on for openi ng the sto re . W hen she ar ri v ed, she obser v ed a pic kup tr uck par ked in front of the s tore wit h a pers on w ho appe ar ed to be p ass ed outi nsi de. Fear ing thatso meone may be w ait ing ins ide the sto re or thatso meone w oul d ac cos t her as she ope ned the sto re, the cle rk con tacte d the p olice dep artm ent . Th e Am arillo Police Dep artment dis patc hed tw o off ic ers t o the sc ene. At the s cene, Officer Ponde rs found the truck as de scribed an d ob serv ed app ellantin side th e truck tw itching inv olun tarily . Pond ers believed th at ap pellan t w as exhibiting sig ns o f intoxication an d op ene d the truck doo r in
order to speak w it h appel lan t. D ur ing a pa t dow n to ensure that appel lan t did not hav e any
w eapons or

o t h e r d a n g e ro u s i t ems, Off ic e St ephens on di sc ov er ed dr ug parapher nal ia and,
cons eq uentl y , arrest ed appell ant for posses si on of

drug parapher nal ia. A str ip search of appel lan t atthe jai l led to the d is cov er y of a w hit e pow der

y su bst ance. Che mic al tes ti ng of the subst ance r ev eal ed the presenc e of methamphet amine. As a resul t, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h pos ses si on of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance.
Fol low ing a j ur

y tr ial , app ell ant w as conv ic ted o f p o ssess ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e and sent enced to tw o y ears c onfin ement i n a s tate jai l facil it y . By one is sue, appel lan t c ontends that the tr ial cour t er re d i n refusing to submi t a jur y i nst ru cti on reg ardin g the a dmis si on of ev ide nce obtai ned in viol a ti on of st ate o r federal l aw s. Appel lan t cont ends the t ri al cour

t s houl d hav e inc lud ed an arti cl e 38. 23 i nst ru cti on bec ause the i nit ial detent ion w as a v iol ati on of s tate law , unr eason abl e, and notsu ppor ted b y ar ti cul abl e facts or rationa l inferen ces.3 Law and An alysi s
No ev ide nce obtai ned by an off ic er or other person in v iol ati on of any prov is ion s o f the C onst it uti on or

l aw s o f the St ate o f Texa s, or of the Con sti tuti on or law s of the U nit ed Stat es of Ameri ca, sh all be a dmit ted i n ev ide nce ag ain st the a cc used on th e t rial of any
cr imi nal ca se. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38 .23 (a) (Vern o n 20 05). If the jury bel iev es, or

has a reason abl e doubt , t hat ev ide nce w as obtai ned i n v iol ati on of the law , t he juryshal l b e i ns tr uc te d to d i s r eg ard an y s uc h ev i de nc e s o ob ta i ne d. S ee i d. An a rti c le 38.23 ins tr uct ion mustbe i ncl uded i n the j ur y charg e only

if ther e i s a factual di sput e about how the evidence w as obt aine d. Garza v . Stat e, 12 6 S.W .3d 79, 85 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4). At ap pellan t’s jury

trial, Pond ers testif ied th at he knocke d on the window to g ain appel lan t ’ s a t t e n t i o n b u tt h a ta p p e l l a n td i d n o tre s p o n d a p p ro p r i a t e l y . P o n d e rs t h en opened th e door t o appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e to q uest ion appel lan t. Ponde rs tes ti fied th at he bel iev ed th at ap pel lan t w as poss ibl y i ntox ic ated and that he had a dutyto inv est ig ate t he situat ion f urthe r. U pon q uest ioning, ap pellan t w as un able to answer Pond ers satisfacto rily and w as ev entual ly

es cor ted t o St ephens on’ s v ehi cl e. Before bei ng pl aced in the v ehi cl e, Stephe nson tes ti fied that he fris ked appel lan t for w eapons and found dr ug parapher nal ia. Stephe nson further tes ti fied that he pla ced appel lan t under ar re st for dr ug parapher nal ia. Appel lan t di d notco ntes t or deny any of t hese facts. Ins tead, appel lan t c ontes ted t he l eg al significan ce of

these f acts and wheth er t he facts, p rior to Pond ers ope ning the do or, w ere suffici ent t o s uppor

t a re asona ble su spi ci on to beg in an i nv est ig ator y dete nti on.4

T he f irst pa rt o f

article 38.2 3(a) refers to the adm issibility of the evidence . Pierce
v . Sta te, 32 S.W .3d 2 47, 2 51 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 200 0). T he decision t o exclude evidence is a q uest ion of law and is to be deci ded by the tr ial co urt, w ho c an mak e tha t det er minat ion by a r uli ng of law , a findi ng of fact , or both. See id. Base d on the re cord, the tr ial cour t had previously

ruled on a Motion to Suppre ss and ma de the l egal conclu sion that the ev iden ce obtai ned atthe jai l w as admis si ble

. Appel lan t has not cont est ed the tri al cour t’ s r uli ng on his Motion to Supp re s s . T h e s econ d sen ten ce of article 38.2 3(a) spea ks to the jury instructio n and , assum ing th e evidence has b een adm itted , can op erate only if there is a cont este d issue of

fact ab o u t h o w th e evidence w as ob taine d. See id. As prev iously state d, ap pellan t doe s not contest the facts presente d at tri al. W hen the on ly q uest ion is a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , t h e r e i s n o i s s u e i n v o l v i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f e v i d e n c e fo r t h e juryto
rev iew . See id. T hus, the trial court did not err in den y ing app ellant ’s req uestfor an article 38.23( a) j ur

y i nst ru cti on. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue.
Con cl usi on
For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.