AM.
II
RELEVANT FACTS REVISITED
THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
The issue of the legality of the initial traffic stop was re-litigated during the RELATOR'S jury trial. The jury heard "THE RELEVANT FACTS REVISITED," listed herein at pages 2 - 5, inter-alia, and especially MUNOZ'S "INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (TEX PEN CODE (TPC) § 37.06) WITH THE INTENT TO DECEIVE AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE STATEMENTS MEANING HE MADE THE FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH (TPC § 37.02, PERJURY), and THE FALSE STATEMENT. WAS MADE DURING AND IN CONNECTION WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, SPECIFICALLY THIS TRIAL, AND WAS MATERIAL. THE STATEMENT WAS MATERIAL, REGARDLESS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE STATEMENT UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, AS IT HAS AFFECTED THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THESE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS, SPECIFICALLY, PRE - TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING, JURY TRIAL, COURT OF APPEALS - APPEAL, PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW - COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND COURT OF APPEALS ON REMAND(TPC § 37.03, AGGRAVATED PERJURY; see also, TPC § 37.04, MATERIALITY). WHETHER A STATEMENT IS MATERIAL IN A GIVEN FACTUAL SITUATION IS A QUESTION OF LAW ( ID. I AT TPC § 37 .04). II
MORE SPECIFICALLY: THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TESTIMONY
MUNOZ, under oath, testifies RELATOR "DOES NOT SIGNAL A TURN AT THE ALLEGED INTERSECTION" where NINTH STREET "ENDS INTO" MARGARET STREET AS HE CONTINUES TO FOLLOW THE "CURVE INTO MARGARET STREET WHERE NINTH STREET ENDS," thereby, "ONE STREET 'MERGES' INTO THE OTHER FROM EITHER DIRECTION (See, NINTH STREET I MARGARET STREET I MUNOZ POSITION, DIAGRAM ATTACHED; see also, "COMPARE," CITY MAP, introduced by DEFENSE ATTORNEY, REPORTER'S RECORD, volume 5, EXHIBIT DX- 1)."
R8 - LITIGATED SUPPRESSION TESTIMONY AT TRIAL
MUNOZ, under oath, testifies and admits NINTH STREET and MARGARET DRIVE "MERGE" at THEIR "INTERSECTION." When asked whether there were "ANY TRAFFIC SIGNS OF ANY KIND" at "THE INTERSECTION," MUNOZ responded, "I don't believe. It's just a-- it's 'AN INTERSECTION. I II
The SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS, CAUSE NO. 06-09-00225-CR, MEMORANDUM OPINION, concedes ''The record also contains evidence that the traffic from NINTH STREET 'DOES MERGE ONTO lSHOULD STATE "INTO") MARGARET DRIVE.' The defense introduced a map which suggests 'NINTH STREET MERGES WITH MARGARET DRIVE.' The defense exhibit appears to be photocopied from a commercial atlas (See, SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS, MEMORANDUM OPINION, at page 10, ICI •• )."
II
RELEVANT FACTS REVISITED
CONFUSIVE TESTIMONY FROM HISTORICAL STANDPOINT '· "At the SUPPRESSION HEARING, the defense showed MUNOZ a map, which MUNOZ described as incorrect. When asked, '[D]oes NINTH STREET CURVE INTO MARGARET DRIVE?' MUNOZ responded, 'YES, IT DOES, but the way that indicates is incorrect to the actual way the street is. That's incorrect.' MUNOZ admitted THERE WERE NOT ANY TRAFFIC SIGNS AT 'THE INTERSECTION,' BUT TESTIFIED, '[Ninth Street] DOESN'T CONTINUE ONTO MARGARET though there is 'AN INTERSECTION.'"(MEMORANDUM OPINION, supra, pg. 10, Id .. ).
"At TRIAL, ... The defense introduced a map which suggests NINTH STREET MERGES WITH MARGARET DRIVE .•. According to MUNOZ, the defense exhibit was incorrect '[~]cause ln [the defense exhibit], EAST EIGHTH does not run