September 2025
, / , / , / ,
The following is a summary of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals from February 2025. The summary is an overview; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent history is current as of August 5, 2025.
NEW TRIALS: Limited to grounds raised in motion when State objects. Trial court abused its discretion by granting new trial on ground not raised in defendant’s motion when State objected to consideration of that ground.
State v. Gant, 709 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2025, pet. ref’d). Gant, who was convicted of the offense of tampering with physical evidence, filed a motion for new trial, asserting that (1) the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence and (2) the verdict was excessive. The trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which trial counsel stated that he had filed “the generic motion so as to change the appellate timetables.” The trial court announced that it believed Gant “had ineffective assistance of counsel” and that “as a result of that, justice has not prevailed” for Gant. The State objected to granting a new trial on that ground, but the trial court stated that it had opinions based on its observations of the trial, noted that it did not “have to articulate why,” and granted the motion. The trial court overruled the State’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the State appealed. The appellate court discussed several “guiding rules and principles” that should inform a trial court’s decision on whether to grant a new trial, including: (1) a trial court does not have the discretion to sua sponte grant a new trial; (2) a trial court has the discretion, but not the obligation, to address new issues at a motion for new trial hearing, so long as the State does not object; (3) a trial court does not have the discretion to address new issues at a motion for new trial hearing over the State’s objection; and (4) a trial court does not have the discretion to grant a motion for new trial if that motion is litigated in a manner that circumvents the State’s ability to defend its verdict. Combining these principles, the Court concluded that “a trial court abuses its discretion if it grants a motion for new trial on a new issue (regardless of who raises the issue), at least when the State objects.” Thus, in this case, the trial court would have abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel because the State objected. The appellate court further concluded that the trial court also would have abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the grounds raised in Gant’s motion. Finding no ground on which the motion could stand, the appellate court reversed the order granting a new trial.
STATE APPEALS OF SUPPRESSION RULINGS: Limited to written orders that have the effect of excluding evidence. Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over State’s appeal of trial court’s pretrial oral ruling on admissibility of evidence that trial court later withdrew.
State v. Abduljabbar, No. 03-24-00708-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 14, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The State charged Abduljabbar with assault involving family violence. Before trial began, the State requested to “pre-admit” a recording of a 911 call made by the complainant, “if there’s no objection.” Defense counsel objected on multiple grounds. After considering the matter, the trial court stated that it “agree[d] with defense counsel, and I am not going to allow the 911 call.” The record contained no written order memorializing the trial court’s ruling, and the record did not reflect that the State sought such an order. Later that morning, the State informed the trial court that it had filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s decision. The trial court disputed that it had granted a motion to suppress the 911 call and informed the parties that it would “withhold” its ruling on the admissibility of the evidence at that time. The appellate court granted a stay of the proceedings to consider the appeal. The Court discussed the governing law regarding State appeals of orders granting motions to exclude evidence. Based on that law, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court had withdrawn its ruling on the admissibility of the evidence and there was no written order excluding evidence for the State to appeal. Moreover, the appellate court could not abate the appeal and remand for entry of a written order, as it had done in other cases, because there would be no existing order for the trial court to enter on remand. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal.