Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas
This text of Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas (Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00165-CR
ANDRE DUANE BOYD, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-737-C1
DISSENTING OPINION TO APRIL 23, 2024 ORDER
The Court, based on its personal knowledge of the historical method of the way
indictments in a county are prepared, filed, and maintained, and based upon the further
assumption by the Court that all the trial court judges in that county handle indictments
in the same way, and based upon the further assumption that the judges and parties in
that county continue to conduct their business that way, ordered the trial court clerk to
take an action that will modify the appellate record. I believe the Court has crossed the line between being a neutral arbiter of the questions presented to it by the parties and has
effectively become an advocate and active participant in the process.
The parties have fully briefed the issues in the appeal. Two of those issues relate
to the indictment. The first is whether a purported modification is an amendment or is
merely striking surplusage from it. The second is whether the indictment was physically
altered. This issue is based upon the indictment as it appears in the appellate record. In
the course of addressing the second issue, the State concedes that the indictment was not
physically altered.
Based on its personal knowledge and recollection, information outside the existing
appellate record, the Court purports to fix the problem. At this juncture, the date and
manner of the physical alteration of the indictment is going to be difficult to determine.
Specifically, the timing of when the purported physical striking of a word, "serious," from
the indictment is going to be a challenge. While the trial court stated that it "will" strike
the word "serious" from the indictment, it does not say that it has or is doing so. From
the appellate record which currently exists, it is not apparent that the physical indictment
was before the trial court at the time of the hearing. And it does not appear from the
record that the indictment as modified was ever copied and served on the parties. The
location, condition, and content of the original indictment thereafter is not accounted for
in the appellate record.
The trial court clerk lost control of the original when the Court ordered it to be
delivered to this Court's Clerk. The timing and circumstances of the physical alteration
of the indictment cannot be determined from the appellate record. The
Boyd v. State Page 2 defendant/appellant has already presented two motions to this Court that challenge the
document presented as the original indictment as having been altered; forged. Much like
a break in the chain of custody for a piece of evidence, the provenance of the indictment,
specifically the physical alteration thereof, has been lost.
It seems to me that there are two avenues out of this conundrum. We could
address the case as presented, based on the appellate record upon which those briefs were
prepared. Or, alternatively, we could abate the appeal, and remand the case to the trial
court for a hearing to determine when the face of the indictment was altered, if it has
been, how that alteration was communicated to the defendant, if it was, and whether the
indictment as purportedly altered appears in the trial court clerk's record. Upon
reinstatement, the parties would then have to be allowed to re-brief the issues based upon
the hearing on remand and the supplementation of the appellate record, if any.
Because the Court has stepped outside its role as a neutral arbiter of the issues
presented and renders an order for the express purpose of being able to alter the appellate
record and then does so, I respectfully dissent.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 9, 2024 Publish [RWR]
Boyd v. State Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andre-duane-boyd-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.