Garcia v. State, No. 13-06-00637-CR (Tex. App. 11/6/2008)

• Decision Date: 06 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 13-06-00637-CR.,13-06-00637-CR.
• Citation: Garcia v. State, No. 13-06-00637-CR (Tex. App. 11/6/2008), No. 13-06-00637-CR. (Tex. App. Nov 06, 2008)
• Parties: LUIS ANTONIO GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

LUIS ANTONIO GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 13-06-00637-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi.

Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed November 6, 2008.

Do Not Publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices RODRIGUEZ and BENAVIDES.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice RODRIGUEZ.

Appellant, Luis Antonio Garcia, appeals from a conviction of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). By eight issues, Garcia contends that: (1) the evidence at trial is legally insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for instructed verdict; (4) the trial court erred in admitting the pre-trial photographic identification and trial testimony of Billy Wayne Johnson; (5) the admission of four of the State's photographic exhibits violated his rights to due course of law under Article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution; (6) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of Claudia Gonzalez; (7) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of Garcia's alleged gang affiliation; and (8) the trial court erred by allowing "backdoor hearsay" testimony. We affirm.

I. Background

On April 11, 2000, Rodulfo Landa died after he was stabbed in the chest at a night club. Johnson provided details for a composite sketch of the alleged suspect. After the composite sketch was published on local news broadcasts, an anonymous person called Crime-Stoppers¹ and stated that the sketch resembled a person known as "El Morrito" who was later identified as Garcia. Johnson was unable to identify Garcia in a photo lineup. Gonzalez, Garcia's ex-girlfriend, informed Crime-Stoppers that the sketch resembled Garcia, that Garcia told her he had stabbed Landa, and that Garcia showed her the knife he used to commit the offense. Gonzalez told Investigator David Rogers that after the stabbing, she accompanied Garcia to 703 Chapa Street where Garcia left the knife. Investigators searched the house and found the knife in a pair of shorts. They also found a driver's license belonging to Demencio Martinez, a person acquainted with Garcia, in the shorts.

The case went unsolved and was considered a "cold case"² until Investigator Frank Trevino was assigned to "follow up" on it. Investigator Trevino asked Johnson to view the photo lineup again. Johnson reviewed the photo lineup and indicated that Garcia was the person he described in the composite sketch. Johnson later testified, however, that Garcia was not the person he described.

The jury found Garcia guilty of murder and an enhancement allegation, that is not at issue, as "true." Punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for sixty-five years and a fine in the amount of $10,000. This appeal ensued.

II. Legal and Factual Sufficiency

By his first issue, Garcia challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction because the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Garcia who caused Landa's death. By his third issue, Garcia contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for instructed verdict. We address Garcia's first and third issues together because a challenge to the trial court's ruling on a motion for instructed verdict is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. See McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Billy v. State, 77 S.W.3d 427, 428 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd); Cantu v. State, 944 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, pet. ref'd) (citing Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Rodriguez v. State, 888 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no pet.)). By his second issue, Garcia generally argues that the evidence was factually insufficient to support his conviction because the jury was not rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we view the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979)); Escamilla v. State, 143 S.W.3d 814, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight given to testimony. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Beckham v. State, 29 S.W.3d 148, 151 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). We do not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence, and we do not substitute our own judgment for the trier of fact. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Beckham, 29 S.W.3d at 151. Instead, we consider whether the jury reached a rational decision. Beckham, 29 S.W.3d at 151.

In a factual sufficiency review, we review the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the evidence is so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the jury's verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). This Court will not reverse the jury's verdict unless we can say with some objective basis in the record that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence contradicts the verdict. Id. at 417.

The State is not required to present direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony to establish guilt. See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of the actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49. The law does not require that each fact "point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative effect of all the incriminating facts is sufficient to support the conviction." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49.

Both legal and factual sufficiency are measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Adi v. State, 94 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd). Under a hypothetically correct jury charge, a person commits murder if he "intentionally and knowingly causes the death of an individual" or intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused death. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (2).

B. Analysis

Garcia argues that the State did not establish that he murdered Landa because there was no eyewitness testimony. We disagree. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49.

Officer Herrera stated that Garcia acknowledged that he was at the night club on the night of the stabbing. Johnson assisted the police in creating a composite sketch of the suspect. Based on the composite sketch, Gonzalez contacted Crime-Stoppers and informed the police that the composite sketch resembled Garcia. Johnson identified Garcia from a photo array as the person he saw hit Landa in the chest. Gonzalez testified that Garcia told her he stabbed Landa, showed her the knife he used, and left the knife at the Chapa Street residence. Police found a knife fitting the description given by Gonzalez at that residence. Investigator Rogers testified that, after his interview with Gonzalez, he determined that the knife recovered was the murder weapon. Also, Gonzalez told Investigator Trevino that the knife was the same one shown to her by Garcia. At trial, when the State showed Gonzalez a picture of the knife discovered by police, she testified that it was the same knife Garcia claimed he used to stab Landa. Finally, Martinez testified that Garcia told him that he stabbed Landa.

In support of his factual sufficiency challenge, Garcia argues that the following evidence is contrary to the verdict and outweighs the evidence supporting the verdict: (1) at trial, Johnson "never wavered in his testimony" that Garcia was not the person he described to investigators; (2) Jorge Humberto Lopez, a companion of Landa, did not see who stabbed Landa and did not recognize Garcia; and (3) Vanessa Landez, a customer at the club on the night of the stabbing, did not "see anyone get stabbed."

Although Garcia correctly asserts that Johnson denied that Garcia was the person he saw hit Landa, Johnson did acknowledge that he chose Garcia's picture from a photo array. While Garcia did produce some evidence contrary to the verdict, it does not outweigh the evidence supporting the verdict. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support Garcia's conviction. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49.

Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Garcia who caused Landa's death. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Escamilla, 143 S.W.3d at 817. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we further conclude that the evidence is not so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, and that the jury's verdict is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 414-15. We conclude that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to establish Garcia was the person who stabbed Landa. We overrule Garcia's first, second, and third issues.

III. Motion to Suppress

By his fourth issue, Garcia contends that the trial court erred in denying his ...