Court Opinion

ID: 9730993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:30:05.519286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:11.997854
License: Public Domain

GRAY, Justice,
concurring.
We do not decide constitutional issues unless required to do so for disposition of the case. San Antonio General Drivers, etc. v. Thornton, 156 Tex. 641, 299 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex.1957). In this case we should not address the question of whether it is a violation of the First Amendment to require the reporting of suspected child abuse. The issue is not adequately raised- or discussed in White’s brief.
Issue on Appeal
In three different places, White states her issue on appeal. White never included in the issue that she was challenging the statute on an alleged violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. The issue is twice stated as follows:
The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss when the statute upon which the prosecution was based was unconstitutionally vague as applied to appellant.
The third time that the issue is stated in White’s brief it is stated as follows:
The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss when the statute upon which the prosecution was based was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to appellant.
The italicized portion is the only difference from the prior two statements of the issue on appeal. There is no explanation for the differences in the statement of the issue in White’s brief. Neither statement of this issue asserts that the statute violates the First Amendment.
ARGUMENT ON APPEAL
By reviewing the argument under White’s issue we should be able to determine the nature of her complaint. Her opening paragraph is as follows:
Appellant contends that the statutes upon which the prosecution was based in this case is so vague on its face and as applied to her that it offends her right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 1 Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, and Article 1.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss based bn this ground, which was denied by the Trial Court. After the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Appellant *53reurged this motion, which was again denied by the Trial Court.
White’s brief then continues for over five pages discussing the due process arguments as outlined in the opening paragraph under her issue. The argument is multifarious and should not be considered. Issues raised under both the Federal and Texas Constitutions must be briefed and argued separately. O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548, 550 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
A review of the arguments made in the motion to dismiss, which is referenced in the paragraph quoted above, reveals that the First Amendment issue was not part of the argument in the trial court. Accordingly, we cannot use that reference as a means to bootstrap White’s First Amendment argument into her brief.
The central theme of her vagueness argument is contained in the following excerpt from her brief:
Appellant would argue that the Texas statute does not apply a reasonable person standard, or any other standard and does not give a person or [sicj ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct the statute attempts to require. Specifically, Appellant argues that the statute did not give her fair notice of what conduct the statute attempted to require and is vague so [as] to offend her Due Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, (emphasis in original)
This is the only argument we should address under White’s issue as presented.
Brief on the First Amendment Issue
The brief on the First Amendment issue is wholly inadequate to present an issue for our review. To avoid the waste of judicial resources, resources paid for by the taxpayers, briefs must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. “The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h).
White’s brief of the First Amendment issue does not meet this simple rule. Cavender v. State, 42 S.W.3d 294 (Tex.App.—Waco 2001, n. pet. h.). White’s brief contains no references to authorities or the record. It is insufficient. Id. The totality of White’s brief on the First Amendment argument is contained in four lines at the end of her brief under this issue, obviously as an afterthought. The entire argument is as follows:
Additionally, Appellant would show that Section 261.101, Texas Family Code is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad on its face, because the right to free speech under the Frist Amendment to the United States Constitution is implicated. The statute as written requires an ordinary citizen to espouse a particular viewpoint regarding what Constitutes child abuse or neglect.
The State challenged the sufficiency of White’s brief on the Frist Amendment issue. White did nothing in response to the State’s argument that the brief was inadequate. See id. We should not address this very important constitutional issue when the issue has not been properly briefed and presented for our review.
Conclusion
Because I cannot join in addressing the first amendment issue, I express neither agreement or disagreement with the majority’s analysis of the issue. Because the majority reaches the result that the trial court’s judgment will not be reversed on this ground, the majority reaches the same result that I would reach by not consider*54ing the issue. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.