Court Opinion

ID: 9749671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:57:10.779793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:55.566213
License: Public Domain

SUE WALKER, Justice,
concurring.
Because the trial court has not held a suppression hearing — that is, no witness *791has testified, and no evidence has been introduced — I concur with the judgment dismissing this appeal. Soutchay Sana-vongxay filed a motion to suppress, alleging as the sole basis for his motion that DNA evidence should be suppressed because it was not timely produced by the State. Once the trial court holds a hearing on the issue of whether the DNA evidence should be excluded for the State’s alleged failure to timely produce it, the trial court will have a reasonable time to enter an order reflecting its ruling on the motion to suppress, and if the trial court suppresses the DNA evidence, the State may then appeal that ruling. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2010) (authorizing State’s appeal); State v. LaRue, 152 S.W.3d 95, 100 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (addressing State’s appeal from trial court order suppressing DNA evidence based on State’s alleged failure to timely produce DNA evidence pursuant to discovery order).