TX1: Comment on refusal to consent here wasn’t prejudicial

The prosecutor commented on defendant’s refusal to consent and defense counsel didn’t object. On this record, there was plenty of evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the drugs such that the error, if it was, was prejudicial to him. Jones v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3139 (Tex.App. – Houston (1st Dist.) March 31, 2015).

The court credits that defendant consented to the police entry but they retreated when his pit bull appeared after the dog was put away, then they reentered. Any constitutional violation was minimally flagrant. United States v. Wortham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42929 (E.D. Wis. February 6, 2015), prior op. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183249 (E.D. Wis. December 5, 2014).*

Defendant’s car was parked partly on the street with somebody behind the wheel at 2:45 am, so the officer decided to conduct a welfare check and the use of emergency lights didn’t make it an arrest. State v. McCormick, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 238 (April 2, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.