Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 12-0136
Click for Official Page


The Court requested full merits briefing on June 29, 2012. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on February 6, 2015. File Closed


February 6, 2015


Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF


Court of Appeals

Appellate District:4th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Affirmed
COA Docket No.:04-10-00661-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Sandee Bryan Marion

Trial Court

Trial Court:63rd District Court
County:Val Verde
Trial Judge:Honorable Enrique Fernandez
Trial Docket:27662

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-05-07 Case Stored  
2015-03-20 Mandate issued  
2015-02-06 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2015-02-06 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court
2015-02-06 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2015-02-06 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
2015-01-12 Letter brief (Respondent)  
2014-12-16 Letter brief (Petitioner)  
  This case was pending on merits briefs between September 4, 2012 and December 16, 2014.  
2012-09-04 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2012-08-20 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2012-07-30 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2012-07-05 Case Record Filed  
2012-06-29 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2012-06-29 Record Requested in Petition for Review
2012-06-15 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2012-06-08 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2012-04-19 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2012-04-19 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2012-04-13 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2012-03-13 Case forwarded to Court
2012-03-07 Response Waiver filed  
2012-02-17 Appendix Filed (Petitioner)  
2012-02-17 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  


Party Counsel Role
Gutierrez, Jesse James
Mr. Jesus M. Dovalina
Ms. Kimberly S. Keller
Wackenhut Corporation
Ms. Lecia Lynne Chaney
Mr. Jaime A. Saenz
Mr. Michael W. Eady
Ms. Sara Berkeley Churchin

Objecting to a trial court’s pretrial sanction order can preserve error against an eventual spoliation instruction

This is a negligent-spoliation case. After a contested hearing before trial, the district court ordered that a spoliation instruction would be given to the jury. When it came time to approve the jury charge, however, the defendant did not renew this objection. The court of appeals held that this waived any complaint about spoliation.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the objections made before trial were clear enough, and clearly enough ruled upon, that the question of whether some spoliation question was proper had been adequately preserved. (It noted that there was no challenge here to the precise wording of the instruction, a challenge that might have required a different type of objection or ruling.)