Opinion Library

Evidence

Barreramaya v. State

COA05

In Barreramaya v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed an indecent assault conviction where the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the victim 'froze' instead of physically resisting. The court analyzed the 'freeze' response as a valid trauma reaction that does not imply consent, particularly in situations involving power imbalances. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony was legally sufficient to prove lack of consent. Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant's challenges to the 'trauma-informed' expert testimony were waived because he failed to make timely, specific objections during the trial.

Litigation Takeaway

"In cases involving family violence or sexual coercion, a victim's failure to physically resist (the 'freeze' response) does not prove consent. Furthermore, you must 'object or waive'; if a party fails to challenge the qualifications or scope of trauma-informed expert testimony during the trial, they cannot challenge its admissibility on appeal."

Property Division

Moore v. 1789 Minerals Fund I, LP

COA06

In a dispute over mineral and royalty interests, the Texarkana Court of Appeals addressed whether time-barred claims regarding a decades-old tax foreclosure could be revived. The Appellants argued that a 2014 Sheriff’s Deed was ambiguous, conveying only specific wellbore interests rather than the entire mineral estate. The Appellees contended the claims were barred by the Texas Tax Code's strict two-year limitations period. The court analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.069, which permits the filing of otherwise time-barred counterclaims if they arise from the same transaction as the original suit. The court held that because the underlying interpleader action concerned property ownership, the Appellants' cross-claims were revived under the statute. Furthermore, the court found the deed contained a 'latent ambiguity' due to conflicting property descriptions, making summary judgment improper.

Litigation Takeaway

"A 'dead' claim isn't always gone; Texas law provides a procedural 'revival' for time-barred counterclaims and cross-claims in property disputes. If a party initiates a lawsuit regarding property characterization or ownership, the opposing party may have a 30-day window to assert claims for deed construction or title defects that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations."

Evidence

Lopezmejia v. State

COA05

After Jaime Lopezmejia was involved in a severe car accident, police arrested him without a warrant for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Lopezmejia moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest was illegal because police had time to get a warrant and no emergency ('exigency') existed. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.03(a)(1), a warrantless arrest for a 'breach of the peace' at a suspicious place—such as a fresh accident scene where the driver shows signs of impairment—is valid even without proof of exigent circumstances.

Litigation Takeaway

"Texas courts have lowered the bar for validating warrantless DWI arrests at accident scenes by removing the 'exigency' requirement. For family law cases, this means that highly damaging evidence of a parent’s substance abuse or endangerment is much more likely to be admitted in court, regardless of whether the police obtained a warrant before the arrest."

Evidence

Robertson v. State

COA07

In Robertson v. State, the defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of his recorded statement to police—in which he claimed a shooting was accidental—as 'self-serving hearsay.' On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals focused on the 'cumulative evidence rule' and the requirements for harm analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). The Court held that even if the exclusion were an error, it was harmless because the defendant later provided the same information through his own trial testimony. Additionally, the Court found the issue waived because the defendant failed to include a specific harm analysis in his appellate brief.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a trial court excludes a police report or recorded statement, testifying to those same facts later in the trial typically 'cures' the error, making it nearly impossible to win an appeal on that issue. To preserve the error, you must argue on the record why the original statement possesses unique value—such as its timing or the witness's demeanor—that trial testimony cannot replicate."

February 13, 2026

Appeal and Mandamus

In the Estate of J. Hugh Wheatfall, Deceased

SCOTX

In a dispute over a decedent's estate, a trial court admitted a will to probate but explicitly limited its ruling to objections filed before a specific date, effectively ignoring a pending will contest filed just one day after that cutoff. The Supreme Court of Texas analyzed the case under the Crowson test, which determines finality in probate proceedings by whether an order unequivocally disposes of all parties and issues within a discrete phase of the litigation. The Court held that because the order's express language carved out a specific timeframe that excluded the pending contest, the order remained interlocutory, meaning the appellate timetable had not yet begun to run.

Litigation Takeaway

"To avoid the 'finality trap,' practitioners must verify that an order unequivocally disposes of all pending pleadings within a specific phase of litigation; if the order contains limiting language or fails to address a live contest, it may be interlocutory, preserving the right to appeal even after the standard 30-day window."

February 13, 2026

In The Interest of W.G., M.G., A.G., Children

COA14

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decree terminating a father’s parental rights following his ten-year sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although the father was previously a primary caretaker, his long-term incarceration created a vacuum of care that he attempted to fill by proposing a kinship placement with the children's paternal grandparents. The court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and the Holley v. Adams best-interest factors, concluding that the grandmother’s repeated positive drug tests for cocaine rendered the proposed placement unsuitable. The court held that the father’s criminal conduct, coupled with the failure to provide a safe, drug-free alternative environment, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support termination.

Litigation Takeaway

"When a parent faces long-term incarceration, the survival of their parental rights often depends entirely on the viability of their proposed kinship placements; practitioners must proactively vet relatives—specifically through independent drug testing—as a relative's substance abuse can effectively seal the parent's fate in a termination proceeding."

In The Interest of J.L.J., A Child

COA14

In *In The Interest of J.L.J.*, a mother sought to overturn a termination decree, arguing that her digitally signed irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment was technically invalid because she did not appear in person before a notary or witnesses. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether these procedural defects under Texas Family Code Section 161.103 invalidated the termination. The court found that because the mother appeared at trial and testified that she signed the document voluntarily and understood its consequences, her statements constituted a binding judicial admission. The court held that such a testimonial confirmation satisfies the evidentiary requirements of Section 161.001(b)(1)(K) and waives any technical challenges to the affidavit's execution.

Litigation Takeaway

"A "prove-up" colloquy in open court is the ultimate safeguard for parental rights relinquishment. By having a parent confirm their signature and understanding on the record, you create a judicial admission that can cure technical or procedural defects in the notarization process, making the termination decree virtually bulletproof against post-judgment attacks."

In the Interest of J.P. and I.P., Children

COA02

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for both Mother and Father following significant evidence of methamphetamine use and "deplorable" living conditions. The Mother’s conduct included a newborn testing positive for drugs and a toddler being observed with a methamphetamine pipe in his mouth, while the Father violated a Department safety plan by returning the children to a residence that lacked running water, a kitchen, and stable electricity. The court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b), applying the clear and convincing evidence standard and the Holley factors to determine the children's best interests. The court held that the objective physical dangers of the home and the parents' continued drug-related neglect provided legally and factually sufficient grounds for termination.

Litigation Takeaway

"Objective markers of environmental neglect—such as the lack of running water or a kitchen—combined with drug exposure, create a nearly insurmountable evidentiary record for parents on appeal. Claims of ignorance regarding a partner's drug use or the specific details of a safety plan are generally ineffective when the children are physically placed in "deplorable" or hazardous living conditions."

In the Interest of J.T. and J.T., Children

COA10

In this parental termination case, a father appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the Department of Family and Protective Services failed to make 'reasonable efforts' to return his children as required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f). Specifically, he claimed the Department failed to provide court-ordered family therapy. The Waco Court of Appeals analyzed the Department's overall conduct, noting that while family therapy was not reestablished before trial, the Department had implemented a service plan, facilitated visitation, and attempted to find new providers after a clinical 'child-driven' protocol delayed therapy following parental misconduct. The court held that 'reasonable efforts' require a diligent, good-faith pursuit of services rather than their guaranteed completion, affirming the termination decree.

Litigation Takeaway

"The Department's duty to make 'reasonable efforts' to return children is measured by the diligence of their process rather than the ultimate success of every service. Clinical barriers—such as a child's lack of therapeutic readiness—can justify the absence of specific services like family therapy, especially when the Department documents an active search for providers and the parents' own behavior contributed to the delay."

In The Interest of T.B., K.B., T.B., K.B., Children

COA11

In this termination of parental rights case, the Department of Family and Protective Services intervened due to the parents' chronic substance abuse, including the mother's drug use during pregnancy and the father's repeated criminal activity and probation violations. The trial court ordered the termination of both parents' rights, finding it was in the children's best interest. The parents appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the best-interest findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(2). The Eleventh Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict using the Holley v. Adams factors, emphasizing that a parent’s past conduct and history of addiction serve as a strong predictor of future endangerment. The court held that the evidence of long-term drug use and criminal instability was sufficient to support the trial court's firm belief that termination was in the children's best interest, affirming the lower court's judgment.

Litigation Takeaway

"A parent's history of substance abuse and criminal recidivism is often the most significant factor in a 'best interest' analysis; practitioners should recognize that past conduct is treated as a reliable predictor of future parental performance, often outweighing recent attempts at rehabilitation."