Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-13-2020
Case Style:
The State of Texas v. Mark Hodges
Case Number: 07-19-00237-CR
Judge: Brian Quinn
Court: Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ford
Defendant's Attorney:
The State asks us if an affidavit is an affidavit when no one administered an oath to the affiant who signed it in Texas?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw Suites
Virtual Offices of Solo Practice Lawyer Starting at $200 a Month
Office With MoreLaw Suites and Reduce Your Overhead
918-582-3993 - Info@MoreLaw.com
The State asks us if an affidavit is an affidavit when no one administered an oath
to the affiant who signed it. The trial court said it was not and granted the motion of Mark
Hodges to suppress evidence involuntary obtained upon execution of a warrant permitting
a blood draw. The affidavit in question was used to obtain the warrant. It was signed by
Officer One at the direction of Officer Two, who then signed the jurat. Both testified at the
suppression hearing that no one administered any type of oath to Officer One. Nor did
the magistrate to whom they presented the affidavit and warrant application administer
2
any oath to assess the truthfulness of Officer One’s statements. The State argues that
the affidavit nonetheless complied with statute because 1) the affidavit’s preamble said
that “[t]he undersigned Affiant, being a Peace Officer . . . and being duly sworn, on oath
makes the following statements . . .” and 2) Officer One testified that he believed himself
to be under oath due to the foregoing passage and knew he “could be in legal jeopardy if
everything in [the affidavit] wasn’t true[.]” (Emphasis added). We affirm.
Our analysis begins with observing that the standard of review is abused
discretion. It obligates us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling, afford almost complete deference to a trial court’s express or implied
findings of historical fact, and consider de novo the application of the law to those facts.
Marcopoulos v. State, 538 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
Next, we turn to article 18.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It states that
no search warrant shall issue unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the
issuing magistrate that probable cause “does in fact exist for its issuance.” TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.01(b) (West Supp. 2019). So too does it say that a “sworn
affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause shall be filed in every
instance in which a search warrant is requested.” Id. According to our Court of Criminal
Appeals in Clay v. State, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), “before a written
statement in support of a search warrant will constitute a ‘sworn affidavit,’ the necessary
oath must be administered ‘before’ a magistrate or other qualified officer.” Id. at 99. Such
has been true “for the better part of a hundred years.” Id. Implicit in the words “must be
administered” is the requirement that someone administer an oath before the writing
becomes a valid “sworn affidavit.”
3
Progress and developing technologies have caused our Court of Criminal Appeals
to adapt its edict in certain respects. For instance, an oath may now be administered
over the telephone. Id. Yet, neither our research nor the authority cited by the State
revealed an opinion from the high court dispensing with the almost 100-year-old rule that
“an oath must be administered” by a magistrate or qualified officer to make a document
an affidavit. It may have come close in its earlier opinion of Vaughn v. State, 146 Tex.
Crim. 586 (1943), where no formal oath was administered to the affiant.
Yet, in Vaughn, the court upheld the affidavit while making several significant
observations. The first was that statute did not prescribe any particular form of oath. Id.
at 589. The second was that an oath is any form of attestation signifying the affiant is
bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. Id. The third was that the
words comprising the alleged oath suffice if a charge of perjury “might have been
predicated” on them if false statements appeared in the affidavit. Id. The fourth was, not
only that the magistrate (i.e., justice of the peace) to whom the affidavit and warrant
application were presented asked the affiant “if the facts set forth in said affidavit were
true and the witness replied that such facts were true to the best of his knowledge and
belief,” but also that the witness understood he “was taking an oath” at the time. Id. at
588. So, it may be that no formal oath was administered in Vaughn. Nevertheless, a
magistrate actually inquired into the truthfulness of the statements within the affidavit, and
the affiant understood he was taking an oath when inquiry was made.
The circumstances before us have no one with authority to administer an oath
actually administering one in any way, shape, or form. Nor did anyone with authority to
administer an oath actually inquire into the truthfulness of Officer One’s statements within
4
the purported affidavit. These alone distinguished the circumstances here from those in
Vaughn.
And, though Officer One testified that he knew he was under oath when signing
the affidavit, he said so while also acknowledging that he knew no one had administered
any oath. That suggests he somehow placed himself under oath. Yet, the officer did not
testify about the content of the supposed oath he purportedly operated under. Nor did he
testify that the oath obligated him to acknowledge the truthfulness of what he said in the
affidavit. In fact, nowhere in the body of the affidavit did he actually attest that the
representations therein were true or correct. While such language appeared in the jurat
signed by Officer Two, though, it was preceded by the phrase “after being sworn by me.”
That is, it read that, “on this day personally appeared Affiant [Officer One] and after being
sworn by me, affirmed the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best
of his/her knowledge.” (Emphasis added). “[A]fter being sworn by me” tells the reader
that Officer Two somehow swore in or otherwise administered an oath to Officer One.
Yet, the latter conceded at the suppression hearing that Officer Two merely directed him
to sign the affidavit. Officer One was never “sworn by” Officer Two. Nor was he asked
by Officer Two if the statements were true and correct. Simply put, these representations
appearing in the jurat and confirmed by Officer Two’s signature were false.
This leaves us to wonder whether the type of oath Officer One purportedly
operated under in his mind was the type sufficient to satisfy Vaughn. Such an oath would
be one exposing the affiant to charges of perjury if his representations proved false. As
the Vaughn court said, in “perjury cases, the rule is that there is a valid oath sufficient to
form the basis of a charge of perjury when there is some form of an unequivocal and
5
present act, in the presence of the officer authorized to administer the oath, whereby the
affiant consciously takes on himself the obligation of an oath.” Vaughn, 177 S.W.2d at 60.
An “unequivocal and present act” refers to conduct. Adding that to the passage “whereby
the affiant consciously takes on himself the obligation of an oath,” we read Vaughn to
require, at the very least, the affiant to visually manifest through conduct his intent to be
truthful. Officer One 1) having not verbally taken an oath affirming the truthfulness of his
statements, 2) having not actually been asked in some way by anyone if the statements
were true and correct, and 3) having not personally represented in or outside the affidavit
that the statements were true, we are left speculating on the nature of the visible conduct
in which Officer One engaged to manifest his intent to be truthful. We are left to wonder
how the oath he allegedly operated under in his own mind would place him within the
scope of Vaughn’s concept of perjury. Surely, his participation in the execution of an
affidavit where Officer Two falsely said Officer One was “sworn by me” does not satisfy
the requisites.
The trial court noted other peculiarities in the evidence before it. For instance, in
its fact finding number 4, it expressed as follows: “Despite the fact that the affidavit for
search warrant says, ‘The undersigned Affiant, being a Peace Officer under the laws of
Texas and being duly sworn, on oath makes the following statements and accusations,’
at no time was Officer [One] actually sworn to the allegations contained in his affidavit.”
In finding of fact number 5 it stated the following: “Despite the fact that the affidavit for
search warrant says, ‘Before me, an official authorized to administer and authorize this
oath . . . on this day personally appeared Affiant and after being sworn by me, affirmed
the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge,’
6
at no time did Officer [Two] administer any such oath to Officer [One].” To that we add
finding of fact number 6 wherein the court said that, “[i]n fact, Officer [One] testified that
he is not required to take an oath prior to submitting an affidavit for a search warrant to a
magistrate, and Officer [Two] testified it is not his practice to administer an oath to an
affiant seeking a search warrant for a suspect’s blood in a driving while intoxicated
investigation.”
Each finding suggests a concern the trial court had with what the officers were
saying, both in the affidavit and their live testimony. The officers seemed to say one thing
in the affidavit only to contradict it through their live testimony. From that concern and the
findings illustrating it, we cannot say that the credibility of the officers played no part in
the trial court’s decision. The opposite seems true. Indeed, one could question the
credibility of Officer One’s testimony about believing he was under oath while at the same
time believing that an oath was unnecessary. And, resolution of those credibility issues
fell within the bailiwick of the trial court.1 And, in the trial court granting the motion to
suppress, it would be appropriate for us to imply that the trial court doubted the veracity
of the officers’ testimony. See Powell v. State, No. 03-10-00728-CR, 2011 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7601, at *12–13 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (where explicit fact findings were executed and stating that in
the absence of explicit findings on a contested issue, we assume the trial court made
1 These credibility issues, the manner of their resolution, and our obligation to defer to the way they were resolved by the trial court tend to rebut the State’s argument that the standard of review at bar is de novo. We are not required to assume everything the two witnesses said was accurate. Nor was the trial court. Instead, the trial court was free to disbelieve aspects of their testimony, and we must defer to that. Sullivan v. State, No. 07-16-00227-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7810, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 16, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication).
7
those implied findings necessary to support its ultimate ruling as long as they are
supported by the record).
In short, we are bound to follow precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals. It
said that before a written statement in support of a search warrant constitutes a “sworn
affidavit,” the requisite oath must be administered before a magistrate or other qualified
officer. Clay, 391 S.W.3d at 99. It may have occasion to change that edict given its grant
of the petition for discretionary review in Wheeler v. State, 573 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2019, pet. granted).2 Yet, we must leave to the Court of Criminal Appeals the
decision whether to deviate from Clay and other of its edicts, such as “it is that act of
swearing . . . that is essential.” See Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). And, though some Texas intermediate appellate courts have attempted to
dispense with the need for an administered oath, see, e.g., Ashcraft v. State, No. 03-12
00660-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10402, at *16–21 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 20, 2013,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming the trial court’s decision to
deny suppression even though no oath was administered), they are not the court with
final say.3 It is the former and its declarations that we must follow.
Outcome: The State’s issue on appeal is overruled. The trial court had reasonable
evidentiary basis to conclude that the search warrant permitting a blood draw was void because it was founded on an unsworn affidavit. Thus, we affirm its order granting the motion to suppress.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: