## Facts

- Matthew Medrano was prosecuted for capital murder arising from the robbery-murder of a pizza delivery driver in El Paso, Texas.
- The State’s key witness was a 14-year-old eyewitness who was hypnotized during the investigation and later provided post-hypnosis identification evidence.
- Before trial, Medrano moved to suppress the eyewitness’s post-hypnosis identifications, including an anticipated in-court identification.
- The trial court granted the motion and suppressed the challenged identification evidence.
- The State filed an interlocutory appeal under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5), seeking review of the suppression order.
- The intermediate court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, relying on prior precedent that construed art. 44.01(a)(5) narrowly.

## Issues

1. Whether Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5) authorizes an interlocutory State’s appeal from a pretrial order granting a motion to suppress evidence, even when the suppression rests on legal or constitutional inadmissibility determinations.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred by dismissing the State’s appeal for want of jurisdiction under the restrictive construction of art. 44.01(a)(5) adopted in State v. Roberts.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals’ jurisdictional dismissal.
- The court held that art. 44.01(a)(5) authorizes the State to appeal a pretrial order granting a motion to suppress evidence, assuming statutory prerequisites (including the prosecutor’s certification) are satisfied.
- The court overruled State v. Roberts, rejecting its restrictive construction of art. 44.01(a)(5).
- The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider the State’s appeal on the merits of the suppression order.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5), the State may take an interlocutory appeal from an order that, in substance, grants a motion to suppress evidence, subject to compliance with statutory certification requirements.
- Appellate jurisdiction under art. 44.01(a)(5) turns on the effect of the trial court’s ruling (suppression of evidence), not on characterizing the basis of the ruling as evidentiary, legal, or constitutional.
- A precedent that narrows art. 44.01(a)(5) to exclude suppression orders based on legal inadmissibility improperly limits the jurisdiction conferred by the statute and may be overruled.

## Conclusion

The court held that the State’s interlocutory appeal from a pretrial suppression order fell within art. 44.01(a)(5), overruled contrary precedent that had led courts to dismiss such appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for merits review of the suppression ruling.


State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)