In the case of John Edward Hopper v. The State of Texas, the appellate court reviewed the conviction of John Edward Hopper, who was found guilty of intentionally fleeing from a police officer using a deadly weapon, specifically his SUV. The incident occurred on August 2, 2022, when Deputy Brian Stevens was patrolling US 287 and observed Hopper’s vehicle traveling at 98 miles per hour in a 75-mile-per-hour zone. Deputy Stevens initiated pursuit, activating his lights and siren as he closed in within a car length of Hopper’s SUV. Despite these signals, Hopper continued driving, accelerating to speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. The pursuit involved maneuvering around other vehicles, including semi-tractor trailers, and lasted for approximately three to four miles before Hopper eventually pulled onto the shoulder, maintaining high speeds before coming to a stop half a mile later.
During the traffic stop, Deputy Stevens approached Hopper’s SUV and instructed him to turn off the ignition. Hopper refused, instead lowering his window slightly and passing a document to the deputy. This document indicated that Hopper was an “American State National” and claimed that he had “limited Diplomatic Immunity.” The document further stated that Hopper would not accept any offers to “contract” or comply with any police instructions. Hopper also refused to provide any identification. Donley County Sheriff Butch Blackburn arrived as backup and, after Hopper continued to refuse commands, used a baton to break the SUV’s passenger-side window. After securing the vehicle, Blackburn removed Hopper and placed him under arrest.
At trial, Hopper testified in his defense, claiming that his identification as an “American State National” exempted him from compliance with state laws, including traffic regulations. He argued that speed limits only apply to commercial vehicles and that, as a private traveler, he had a form of diplomatic immunity. According to his testimony, unless there was an injured party involved, no crime had been committed. Hopper also claimed that traffic tickets issued by officers were “contract offers” that he was not obligated to accept. He asserted that he was unaware of Deputy Stevens’s pursuit until the deputy pulled alongside his vehicle, and that he was distracted by adjusting his rearview mirror to watch his son in the backseat and by listening to a phone call via earbuds.
The appellate court reviewed several issues raised by Hopper, primarily focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of character evidence related to his sovereign citizen beliefs. In addressing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court noted that Texas Penal Code § 38.04(a) requires the state to prove that an individual intentionally fled from a peace officer who was lawfully attempting to arrest or detain him. The court found that Deputy Stevens’s testimony, supported by Hopper’s own admissions, demonstrated that Hopper was aware of the pursuit yet continued to drive at high speeds, endangering others on the road. The court also upheld the deadly weapon finding, emphasizing that Hopper’s SUV, used at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour with other vehicles present, was capable of causing death or serious injury. The court cited Deputy Stevens’s and Sheriff Blackburn’s testimony, which highlighted the dangerous nature of the chase and the potential threat Hopper’s driving posed to others.
Another significant issue on appeal was the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of Hopper’s sovereign citizen status, which he claimed as his defense. Hopper argued that the trial court’s admission of this evidence violated Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, which prohibits the use of character evidence to show a person acted in conformity with that character. However, the appellate court held that this evidence was admissible because it provided context for Hopper’s actions and rebutted his defense. Hopper’s belief that he had diplomatic immunity and was not subject to the laws enforced by the police was directly relevant to his intent during the incident. His refusal to cooperate and his assertion that he was above state authority demonstrated his mindset and motivations during the high-speed pursuit. The court also ruled that the probative value of this evidence outweighed any potential prejudice, especially since both Hopper and his former spouse testified extensively about his beliefs without objection.
Furthermore, the court reviewed Hopper’s argument regarding the admission of a training video related to American State Nationalists, which was shown at trial. Although Hopper initially objected to the video, he later requested that the entire video be played. The appellate court found that any potential prejudice from this video was harmless, as it was consistent with other evidence already admitted, and the jury was able to view the material in its entirety.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support Hopper’s conviction for evading arrest while using a deadly weapon and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence related to Hopper’s sovereign citizen status. The decision underscores the court’s stance on sovereign citizen defenses, highlighting that such claims do not provide legal immunity from compliance with state laws, especially when public safety is at risk. The case serves as a reminder of the limitations courts place on alternative legal theories and the consequences of attempting to evade lawful authority based on such beliefs.