October 19, 2016, 10:48
Chris GrierMotion to Suppress
I have this come up fairly often. Some defense counsel will tell me and some prefer to be coy. I feel like if I had a case cite then I could pry it out of the reluctant ones more often and maybe get more time from the judge to respond if they still refuse to tell me before the hearing. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
October 19, 2016, 11:36
Brody V. BurksYes, I will send you a copy of my State's Response to overly vague MTS.
The bottom line is this- a MTS is a particularized form of objection. For an objection to be cognizable, it must clearly state the grounds of the objection and the relief desired. If it doesn't, then it's not error for the judge to deny it out of hand.
October 20, 2016, 08:49
ekquisenberryWould you mind sending me the same? Thanks!
October 20, 2016, 11:08
TVWould like a copy as well, please!
October 20, 2016, 15:37
Brody V. BurksIn order to save myself from sending out a brazillion emails, and to preserve this for posterity, he's the rough outline of the motion I've used. I've yet to have a judge deny it outright, but they've been good about making defense counsel either file a more specific motion, or state on the record what their basis is at a hearing prior to the MTS.
If your judge WON'T make the defense disclose, put the defense to their burden at the motion to suppress. Then after they rest, ask for a continuance to prepare for the grounds that have only NOW been stated.
quote:
1. The Defendant is currently set for trial on DATE. On DATE, the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress alleging broad violations of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the Defendant has asked this Court to suppress any and all statements connected with her arrest, the Motion to Suppress fails to identify any specific error or defect in the investigation, arrest, or questioning of the Defendant. The motion seeks suppression of statements, but does not identify what the statements are, when they were made, who they were made to, or under what circumstances they were made. Without knowing what statement the Defendant alleges to be involuntary, the State cannot respond to the motion. The State thus asks that this motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress be DENIED.
2.
The Motion to Suppress fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. A Motion to Suppress is nothing more than a specialized form of pretrial objection. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 958 n. 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that any objection must be stated with “sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint.” T.R.A.P. §33.1. There is persuasive authority that a motion to suppress which fails to properly specify an objection may simply be denied without a hearing. Parisher v. State, 2009 WL 1563558 (Tex. App. – Austin June 5, 2009, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication). This proposition finds further support in federal caselaw. U.S. v. Howell 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000)(“An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need only be held when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of facts exist.”). A motion to suppress which does not state the grounds of suppression with sufficient specificity presents nothing for review. Martinez v. State, 17. S.W.3d 677, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
WHEREFORE, The State moves this honorable Court to GRANT this Motion for Summary Judgment and subsequently DENY Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
Respectfully submitted,
October 21, 2016, 10:43
Shannon Edmonds(FYI, you can now add attachments to your posts by clicking on the "Add Attachment?" link immediately below the box in which you type your posts.)
October 25, 2016, 09:07
cbusbeeHas anyone seen a Motion to Quash-which does not allege any allegation as to the form and substance of the indictment, but rather alleges issues relating to a motion to suppress such as the validity of the stop, search and subsequent arrest?
November 08, 2016, 16:31
Lori J. KasparYES! See an attached response.
This was a "Motion to Set Aside Information" where the defendant was arguing that the equipment the defendant possessed was not "gambling equipment." (A fact issue - not a motion to suppress or quash issue.)
We've used the Rosenbaum case numerous times to defeat these bogus motions.