Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discovery And Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State dismisses Mitchell Evans case; judge denies preemptive suppression and motion to dismiss with prejudice
Summary
The state tendered a dismissal of charges against Mitchell Evans for a missing witness; the defense asked the court to dismiss with prejudice and to suppress evidence that was not disclosed, but Judge Stephanie Boyd denied the preemptive suppression request and the motion to dismiss with prejudice, noting no motion to suppress had been filed.
The state told the 187th District Court it was tendering a dismissal of charges against Mitchell Evans on the ground of a missing witness. Judge Stephanie Boyd signed the dismissal after counsel confirmed the basis.
Defense attorney Linda Quarley asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice so the defense could seek an immediate expunction; the court denied that request.
During argument the defense said prosecutors had failed to subpoena a phone-records item the court had previously ordered, and the defense sought to suppress that information under what the defense cited as Article 39.14 remedies for late disclosure.
Judge Boyd declined to enter a suppression order without a formal motion and the underlying evidence before the court. As she explained on the record, “as far as the court making a ruling on a motion to suppress, the court does not have a motion to suppress before it, so the court cannot suppress any evidence. I don't even know what the evidence is.”
The state stated on the record that it had no intention to refile the case; the judge advised the defense to obtain a printed transcript of the hearing where the state stated it would not refile, and she said she would be available to testify if the case were refiled.
The court signed the dismissal and denied the defense’s request to dismiss with prejudice. The judge also declined the defense’s request for preemptive suppression of undisclosed material, noting that a motion to suppress must be presented with the specific evidence before the court for a lawful ruling.
