Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00022-CR
Jacori Devon Chandler,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
County Court at Law of Navarro County, Texas
Judge Amanda Doan Putman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. C41376-CR
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jacori Devon Chandler was convicted of evading arrest or detention with
a motor vehicle and sentenced to seven years in prison. His sentence was
suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for seven years. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BRADY EVIDENCE
In this first issue, Chandler complains that the trial court erred in failing to order the State to comply with Chandler’s Brady request. See Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Specifically,
Chandler wanted the trial court to require the State to run criminal history
checks on all of its witnesses and to provide Chandler those results.
Neither Brady nor article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
(which Chandler includes in his argument on this issue) requires the State to
search for exculpatory material or create any document for the defendant. See
Diez v. State, 693 S.W.3d 899, 922 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no pet.) (State not
required to perform the type of forensic analysis on cell phone that defendant
wanted); In re State ex rel. Munk, 448 S.W.3d 687, 692-93 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2014, orig. proceeding) (prosecution need not have performed search on
database of criminal histories); In re Watkins, 369 S.W.3d 702, 706-07 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding) (same); see also Mitchell v. State, No. 01-23-00251-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 312, at *15-17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Jan. 18, 2024, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (State has no
independent duty per Brady or article 39.14 to seek out information for the
defendant); Coleman v. State, 577 S.W.3d 623, 634-35 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2019, no pet.) (similar conclusion under article 39.14); cf. Harm v. State, 183
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (under Brady, “the [S]tate is not
required to seek out exculpatory evidence independently on appellant's
Chandler v. State Page 2 behalf”). Chandler’s first issue is overruled.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Chandler next complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for new trial based on an apparent disciplinary action regarding one prosecutor
for the State which occurred in a different case after Chandler’s conviction.
Chandler provides no case authority or record citations to support his
complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Neville v. State, 622 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2020, no pet.). Thus, this issue is improperly briefed and presents
nothing for review. See id.; Solis v. State, 726 S.W.3d 394, 412 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2025); Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby
v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (affirming that this Court
has no obligation “to construct and compose” a party's “issues, facts, and
arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”
(internal quotes omitted)).
VOIR DIRE
In his last issue, Chander asserts the trial court erred in denying him
the opportunity to conduct voir dire on a subject directly relevant to the State’s
theory of the case: that Chandler ran because he was in possession of
marijuana. Chandler wanted to question the jury about the legal difference
between hemp and marijuana.
Chandler v. State Page 3
A trial court has broad discretion over the voir dire process. Samaripas
v. State, 454 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d
36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Its discretion is abused only when a proper
question about a proper area of inquiry is prohibited. Id.
Here, before the start of voir dire, the State objected to Chandler’s
potential use of a slide in his voir dire presentation about the “Farm Bill of
2018” regarding the regulation of hemp. The State argued that the regulation
was irrelevant to the offense of evading arrest and to whether Chandler was
lawfully detained. Chandler replied that:
…this is still a matter at fact. And because the jury is our
factfinders, we need to educate them on what the law is on an odor
of marijuana and that it could have been legal….I feel that it is
extremely relevant.
The State countered that even if hemp was located in Chandler’s vehicle,
…it doesn't make the detention unlawful. And, again, although
they attempted to detain the defendant, he stepped on the gas and
left. They weren't able to detain him. But even if we assume the
facts the defense's way and it wasn't really marijuana, it was CBD
or it was hemp or what have you, it's not relevant.
After these arguments, the trial court sustained the State’s objection “based on
what the charge is….”
On appeal, Chandler contends that the State proposed an incorrect
assumption at trial that Chandler had a motive to evade arrest because he had
marijuana in his vehicle. The State disputes this. Regardless, Chandler was
Chandler v. State Page 4 charged with evading arrest or detention, not possession of marijuana. Motive
is not an element of evading arrest or detention. See TEX. PENAL CODE
§ 38.04(a). Thus, educating the jury on the law regarding hemp in order to
dispel an alleged motive to flee is not a proper area of inquiry on voir dire.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting
Chandler’s ability to conduct voir dire about the legal difference between hemp
and marijuana. Chandler’s third issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled each of Chandler’s issues, we affirm the trial court's
judgment.
LEE HARRIS
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 20, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
CR25
Chandler v. State Page 5