i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 08 32 -C R Steve RE YE S , Appellant
v . STA TE of

Te xas , Appellee F ro m th e 17 5th

Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t, B e xar County , T e xas Trial Court No. 2008-CR-2261 Honora ble Mary Roman , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini , J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief J ustice Kar en Ang elini , J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 4, 2009 AFF I RMED A j ur y c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt S te ve Re y e s o f the of

fe ns e of po sse ssi on of c oc a ine . In a sin g le issue, Rey es argues the trial court err ed by ref using to submit an instruction to t h e j u ry o n the lawfulne ss of the pol ice conduct i n this case. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.23(a ) (Ve rnon 20 0 5 ). Be cause the evidenc e ra ised no fac t issue on the lawfulne ss of the police c onduct, we
c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt

did no t e rr

in r e fu sin g to i ns tr

uc t th e jur y un de r a rt ic le 38 .2 3( a ). We a ff

ir m.04
- 08
- 00 83 2- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND At trial, the evide nce show ed Rey es wa s observe d by an under cover

San Antonio police office r par

ticipating in a

n appar ent drugtransac tion at a ca rwa sh. Acc ording to the office r’s testimony , Rey es pulled his car into the car wash, drove along side the ca rwa sh stalls, spott ed a c ar in one of the stalls, stopped his ca r, appr oache d the other car ’s d ri ver, e x chang ed an obje ct “ha nd to hand” with the other car ’s driver, returne d to his car , and drove of f quickly . After

observingthe exchang e, the of

fice r, who wa s in an unmarke d car , followed Rey es’s c ar at a distance and ra dioed for a ssistance fr om another police office r. A unif or me d mo tor c y c le of

fi c e r r e sp onded to the un de rc ov e r o ff ic e r’ s r a dio re qu e st. B oth off ic e r s f o ll o w e d Re y e s o n to a h ig h w ay . A t th e ti me , Re y e s w a s dr iv in g a t s p e e d s e x cee ding 80 miles per hour, e ven thoug h the spee d limit was 65 miles per hour. When the motorc y cle of fice r wa s
a c ar l e ng th b e hin d Re y e s, he a c tiv a te d h is e me rg e nc y lig hts . Imme diate ly

a ft e r t he e me rg e nc y

lig hts
we re a c tiv a te d, Re y e s to sse d a wh ite ob je c t ou t of the sunr oo f of his c ar. Re y e s the n pu lle d ov e r t o the side of the r oad. Police retrie ved the white obje ct—a sa ndwich bagcontainin g ab o ut six ounces of
coca ine—from the r oad. Rey es, who wa s alone in the c ar, w as ar rested f or possession of coc aine. Re y e s te sti fi e d o n h is o wn be ha lf a t tr ia l. R e y e s’ s a c c ount o f t he e ve nts le a din g up to his
arr est was lar g ely

consistent with the officers’ testimony
. Rey es admit ted he had been at the ca rwa sh, ha d a pp ro a c he d th e dr ive r’ s w ind owof another c ar, and ha d le ft the c arw a shqu ic kly . Re y e s a lso admitted he wa s driving at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour whe n he wa s pulled over by the04
- 08
- 00 83 2- CR

- 3- motorcy cle of

fice r. Howe ver, Reyes denie d participating in a dr ug tr ansaction at the ca

rwa sh or tossing the c ocaine out of his car
. At the cha

rg e conf ere nce, Re y es’s counsel asked f or the submission of a jury instruction on whether the offic er acte d lawfully in stopping him. The State opposed this instruction, pointi ng out that the undisputed evidenc e showed Rey es wa s speeding , and ther efor e, the of fice r wa s authorized to stop him . Rey es’s c ounsel then asse rted Rey es wa s entitled to the i n s t ru ct i o n beca use “the question is...at the time of the s top was he in possession of the drug s[? ]” The trial judg e re fused the instructio n , n o ti n g

th e u n d is p ute d e v id e n c e s howed Rey es aba ndoned the c ocaine befor e beingseized by the offic er. The jury found Rey es g uilty

of the off ense of possession of coc aine. R E QUI RE M E NT S UNDE R A R TI C LE 38.23( A ) I n his sole issue, Rey es arg ues t he evidence raised a fac t issue as to whether

the coc aine wa s leg ally obtai n ed by

the offic ers, a

nd there fore , the trial cour t erre d in failing to submit a jury instruction under a

rticle 38.23(a ) of the T exas C o d e of Crimi nal Proce dure. Reyes conte nds the
coca ine found on the r oad wa s relinquished as a result of una

uthorized police forc e, and the ref ore, th e ju r y s h o u ld h a v e b e e n in s tr

u c te d o n th e a dmi s s ib il it

y o f th is e v id e n c e . Artic le 3 8
. 2 3 ( a ) o f the Te xas C od e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s, No evidenc e obtained by

an officer or ot her person in violation of any provisions of the Constitut ion or laws of the S tate of Texas, or of the Constitut ion or laws of the United States of Americ a, shall be admitted in e vidence ag ainst the ac cused on the trial of any

criminal ca se. In any c ase where thelegal evide nce raises an issue he reunder, the jury shal l be instructed that if i t believe s, o r h a s a reasonable doubt, that the evide nce was04
- 08
- 00 83 2- CR

- 4- ob tai ne d in v iol

ati on of t hepr ov isi on s o

f th is Ar tic le

, the n an d in su c h e v e nt, thejur y shall disr egard any suc h evide nce so obtained. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.23(a ) (Ve rnon 2005) ( emphasis adde d). A def endant’ s rig ht to the submiss ion of a jury instruction under article 38.23(a) is lim ited to disputed issues of fac t that are materia l to his cla im of a constitutional or statutory violation that would rende r evide nce ina dmissibl e. Madden v . S tate , 242 S.W .3d 504, 50 9-10 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007). A de fenda

nt must m eet thre e re quirements bef ore he is entitled to a j u ry i n s t ru cti on under article 38.23(a) : (1) the e vidence hear d by the jury must raise an issue of

fac t; (2) the evide nce on that fac t must be affirmatively contested; a

nd (3) the contested factua l issue must be material to the lawfulne ss of the cha lleng ed conduc t in obtaining the e vidence
. Id . at 510. There must be a g enuine dispute a bout a mater ial fac t. Id
. I f there is no disputed factua l issue, the leg ality

of the c onduct is determined by the trial judg e alone , as a q u es t i o n of law. Id . A nd if other fa cts, not in dispute, a re sufficie nt to support the lawfulness of the challeng ed conduc t, then the dis pu te d f

a c t is su e is n ot s ub mitte d to the jur y be c a us e it i s n ot m ate ri al to the ult imate admissibili ty

of the e viden ce . Id . The disputed fa ct issue must be an e ssential one in dec iding the lawfulne ss of the cha lleng ed conduc t. Id . at 511. S E I Z URE The F ourth Amendment of the United States Constit ution an d Ar ticle I , Section 9 of the Te xas C on sti tut ion

pr ote c t c iti zen s f

ro m unre a so na

ble se arc he s and

se izur e s. U. S. C O N ST . A MEND . I V; T EX . C O N ST . a

rt . I , § 9. Und er b oth

the fe de ra l and

state c on sti tut ion s, a

se izur e may

oc c ur in either of two way s: (1) when a person is subjected to phy sical for ce, how ever slight, or ( 2) whe n a person submits to a show of author ity
. He rn an de z v . S tate , 963 S.W .2d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—San04
- 08
- 00 83 2- CR

- 5- An t o n i o 1 9 9 8 , p et . re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Calif ornia v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 624-26 (1991), a nd Johnson
v . S tate , 912 S.W .2d 227, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)). I n Hernande

z , a ca se that is strikingly

simil ar to the prese nt case , we he ld the defe ndant was
no t se ize d und e r t

he fe de ra l and state c on sti tut ion s whe n he dis c ard e d c oc a ine fr om a mov ingve hic le afte r law e nf

o r c e me nt a g ents ac tivated their e merg ency lights, but befor e pulling ove r and submitting to a show of a

uthority . 963 S.W .2d at 925. As we stated in Hernande z , A “show of au t h o ri t y ” occ urs when a ctions of the police w ould cause a rea sonable pe rson to believe he or she is not fre e to leave . We ag ree with Herna ndez that the activation of the overhe ad lights constituted a show of a uthority . Howeve r, the evidenc e does not suppor t H erna ndez’s asser

tion that he submitt ed to the show of authority

befor e the c ocaine was disca rded.

. . . . Her nandez ar g ues that he submitted to the show o f authority beca use he pulled over to the side of the roa d. We rec og nize that a seizure m ay occur when a pe rs on sto ps a ve hic le in r e sp on se to a sh ow of a uth or ity . H e re , h ow e ve r, it i s undisputed that Herna

ndez threw the c ocaine out of a moving vehicle. Id . at 924-25 (c itations omi tted) (e mp h as i s in orig inal). I n Hernande z , w e c on c lud e d th a t be c a us e
no seizure occur

red until after the de fenda nt abandone d the coc aine, f eder al and state constitutional p ro t ec t i o n s aga i n s tu n re as o n ab l e s ei zures wer e not implicated. Id
. a t 9 2 5 . Additionally , we c oncluded it w a s unn e c e ssa

ry to expr e ss any op ini on a

bo ut wh e the r the law en fo rc e me nt ag e nts ha d r e a so na ble suspicion to init iate the stop of the de fenda nt’s vehicle. Id . at 925-26. D I S CUS S I ON I n the pre sent ca se, the e vidence failed to raise a m ater ial fac t issue as t o whether the coc aine was obtaine d in violation of any state or f eder al constitutional provisions or laws. I n his testimony at trial, Rey es denie d tossing the c ocaine out of his car . On appe al, howeve r, Re y e s’ s c omp la int

re late s n ot t o w he the r h e tos se d o ut t he c oc a ine , b ut when he did so. At trial, the04
- 08
- 00 83 2- CR

- 6- office rs testified the c ocaine was disca rded w hile Rey es wa s driving down the hig hway and be for e he yie lde d to the mot or c y c le of fi c e r’ s sh ow of a

uth or ity
. No e vid e nc e wa s pr e se nte d to c on te st this testimony . Be cause the undisputed evidenc e showe d the coc aine was aba ndoned bef

ore a ny seizure
occu rr ed , fe d er al an d

s t at e c o n s t i tu t i o n al p ro t ec t i o n s fr o m unrea sonable seizures we re not implicated. See H ernandez , 963 S.W .2d at 925. The e vidence also showed that whe n th e m o t o rcycle of fice r initiated the s top, Rey es wa s exceedingthe spee d limit and violating the law. Ag ain, this evidence
wa s unc on te ste d. Th e vio latio n o f a tra ff ic law i n a

n o ff ic e r’ s p re se nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt a uth or ity to initiate a stop. Ar

mi tage v . S

tate , 637 S.W .2d 936, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). B e c a us e the e vid e nc e he ard

by the jur y did no t r a ise a

mate ri a l f

a c t is su e a s to the lawf

uln e ss of the off icer s’ conduc t, Rey es fa iled to satisfy the Madden require ments and wa s not entitled to an article 38.23(a) instruction. See M adden , 242 S.W .3d at 510. We conclude the t rial cour t did not err by ref using to submit an ar

ticle 38.23(a ) instruction to the jury . Rey es’s issue is over ruled. C ONCL US I ON The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med. Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH