State v. DeAngelis
| Decision Date | 23 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-01-00205-CR.,08-01-00205-CR. |
| Parties | The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. George A. DeANGELIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Jaime E. Esparza, Dist. Atty., El Paso, for appellant.
Luis E. Islas, El Paso, for appellee.
Before LARSEN, McCLURE, and CHEW, JJ.
The State has appealed the trial court's order excluding evidence based upon the attorney-client privilege between Appellee George A. DeAngelis and a city attorney. Pending before us is DeAngelis' motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because the order is not one that may be appealed by the State, we grant the motion to dismiss.
George A. DeAngelis, an officer with the El Paso Police Department, has been charged with aggravated perjury based on inconsistencies between his grand jury testimony and his surreptitiously recorded conversations with city attorney Stephanie Osburn. DeAngelis filed a motion to exclude all evidence obtained from Osburn, claiming attorney-client privilege.
The trial court found that DeAngelis had an attorney-client relationship with Osburn, that the privilege had not been waived, and that no exception to Texas Rule of Evidence 503 applied. Concluding that DeAngelis possessed the privilege to prevent disclosure of information related to Osburn by virtue of the attorney-client relationship, the trial court ordered that DeAngelis' taped conversations with Osburn, her grand jury testimony, her written statements, any other fact she learned via the attorney-client relationship, and all evidence obtained either directly or indirectly from Osburn were inadmissible and excluded from evidence.
The State's notice of appeal is countenanced upon Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 44.01(a)(5), which authorizes the State to appeal from orders granting motions to suppress evidence, confessions, or admissions. DeAngelis contends that because the order excluding evidence is not an order granting a motion to suppress evidence within the meaning of the statute, the State lacks the right of appeal. We agree.
DeAngelis argues, and the State candidly concedes, that under current law as articulated in State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), the State's appeal from the order excluding evidence pursuant to Rule 503 is precluded. In Roberts, the Court determined that "the phrase `motion to suppress evidence' as used in art. 44.01(a)(5) is limited to motions which seek to suppress evidence on the basis that such evidence was illegally obtained." Id. at 660.
This Court applied Roberts in State v. Medrano, 987 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, pet. granted), in which we concluded that a motion to suppress evidence is a term of art contemplating more than simple exclusion pursuant to general rules of evidence such that the statute does not allow interlocutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Deangelis
...upon then-existent precedent.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits. State v. DeAngelis, 53 S.W.3d 905 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001), rev'd, 71 S.W.3d 345 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). We now undertake that task. We have endeavored to offer a complete factual......
-
State v. Deangelis
..."is limited to motions which seek to suppress evidence on the basis that such evidence was illegally obtained." State v. DeAngelis, 53 S.W.3d 905, 906 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001). The State filed a petition for discretionary review complaining of the Court of Appeals' holding. We recently overr......