State v. Ross
- Decided
- November 29, 2000
- Docket
- 1618-99
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 3,729 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that if trial court does not make findings of fact, appellate court must assume that trial court made implicit findings that support its ruling — State v. Roy Guzman (2007)
- holding that if the trial court‘s decision is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, its decision will be sustained — Roger Eugene Fain v. State (2012)
- holding that if the trial court’s decision is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, its decision will be sustained — Roger Eugene Fain v. State (2012)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
PRICE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which MEYERS, MANSFIELD, HOLLAND, and JOHNSON, JJ., joined.
Appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence that alleged no probable cause for his arrest. At the hearing on the motion, the only witness to testify was the arresting Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) agent. Following the testimony, the judge granted the motion and did not file findings of fact. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the agent’s testimony, if believed, showed reasonable suspicion for the initial detention and probable cause for the eventual arrest.[1] However, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court, sitting as trier of fact, was the sole judge of credibility and could disbelieve any or all of the agent’s testimony.[2] The Court then applied the “almost total deference” standard of review and affirmed the trial court.[3] We granted review to determine whether “an appellate court may uphold a trial court’s decision to suppress evidence as within its discretion, instead of de novo, because the trial court might have disbelieved some or all of the State’s un-controverted evidence.” Because the trial court is the sole judge of credibility of the witnesses and we will uphold a trial court’s ruling on any theory of law applicable to the case, and because this involves an application of law to facts, the outcome of which turns on the credibility and demean- or of the witness, we will affirm the Court of Appeals.
BACKGROUND Agent Darnell testified to the following events at the motion to suppress hearing. At approximately 12:50 a.m., on November 2, 1997, Agent Darnell and two other TABC agents finished inspecting a local bar. When they walked out the front door, Agent Darnell noticed the windows of a nearby pickup truck were fogged up. He looked inside the truck and saw two young children sleeping, without any blankets or coverings, in the front seat. Because the night was cold and someone could have broken into the truck, Agent Darnell sent another agent into the bar to find the owner of the pickup.[4] When the owner of the pickup, Ross, came out, Agent Darnell noticed that he held on to things for balance and support, spoke with a thick tongue, had bloodshot eyes, and his breath smelled of alcohol. Agent Darnell asked appellee how he was going to get the children home, and Ross replied that he was going to drive them home. Agent Darnell then arrested appellee for public intoxication.
Cite this
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (2000)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.