Garcia v. State, No. 04-03-00404-CR (TX 12/15/2004)
| Decision Date | 15 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-03-00404-CR,04-03-00404-CR |
| Parties | JUAN ARTEMIO GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas, Trial Court No. 02-CR-277, Honorable John A. Pope, III, Judge Presiding.
AFFIRMED.
Sitting: Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice and Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
Juan Artemio Garcia was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Garcia raises numerous issues on appeal. Based on a thorough review of the record and analysis of the appellate issues, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
On July 9, 2002, Trinidad Hernandez, was found dead in the cab of a pick up truck on Highway 755 in Starr County with a gunshot wound to the head. Sergio Aldape1 was arrested and charged with Trinidad's murder. Aldape initially denied killing Trinidad, but later admitted to shooting him and claimed that Appellant, Juan Artemio Garcia, had hired him to commit the murder. In exchange for $10,000, Aldape agreed to stage a drug deal with Trinidad. After arranging the drug deal, Aldape led Trinidad, who followed in a separate car, out onto Highway 755. At some point Aldape stopped and approached Trinidad's vehicle. Trinidad attempted to leave, but Aldape put his hand in the partially open window and shot Trinidad in the head. Aldape then reported to Garcia that the shooting had taken place. He later met Garcia at Los Compadres, a local bar, where Garcia paid Aldape a sum of money. Aldape pled guilty to capital murder and agreed to testify against Garcia in exchange for the State's recommendation of a maximum sentence of 30 years.
At trial, three of Trinidad's relatives testified to a confrontation between Trinidad and Garcia over missing marihuana which occurred approximately one month before Trinidad's murder. Two employees of Garcia testified that they saw El Guero, i.e., Aldape, at Garcia's ranch on the night of the murder and saw him give Garcia a gun and a beeper. One employee, Jose Rodriguez Rios, testified he heard El Guero say he had "done the job" and had "killed a person." Another employee, Jesus Angel Cavazos Rodriguez, testified that El Guero indicated to Garcia that the beeper belonged to the deceased man. After El Guero left, Garcia instructed Rodriguez to drive by the scene and confirm Trinidad's death. Rodriguez reported to Garcia that a truck was off the road with a dead person inside and police surrounding the truck. Rodriguez further testified that later that night he accompanied Garcia to a nearby bar where he witnessed a meeting between Garcia and El Guero in the bar's parking lot. He saw Garcia give El Guero "a roll of bills." Dina Garza, who was dating Aldape, testified he had a small black gun in his possession on the day of the murder, and he asked her to hold $1,000 for him later that night at Los Compadres bar. Jessica Munoz, a friend of Dina's, also testified she saw Aldape with a gun when he borrowed her car on the day of the murder. Jessica stated Aldape was "broke" that day, but had "a lot of money" the day after the murder.
On appeal, Garcia raises a number of issues, which include: (1) whether the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that Garcia intentionally employed Aldape to kill Trinidad; (2) whether the trial court improperly commented on the weight of the evidence during trial, violating his right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution; (3) whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Garcia's motions for mistrial after a witness stated in front of the jury that he did not want to testify for fear for his safety, and after an unauthorized communication with a juror violated his right to an impartial jury; (4) whether the trial court violated Garcia's right to confront witnesses through cross-examination and impeachment evidence; (5) whether the trial court denied Garcia effective assistance of counsel by not allowing certain questions during voir dire; and (6) whether the trial court violated his right to timely disclosure of all exculpatory evidence in the possession of the State. We address each issue below.
Sufficiency of Corroborating Evidence (Issue No. 1)
In his first issue, Garcia claims the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the accomplice witness testimony of the shooter, Sergio Aldape. An accomplice witness is someone who participated before, during or after the commission of the crime. Williams v. State, 995 S.W.2d 754, 759 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides, "a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 1979). It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence directly connect the defendant to the crime or be sufficient by itself to establish guilt. Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App.1999) (en banc). It need only tend to connect the defendant to commission of the offense. Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462 (citing Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). As discussed below, we conclude the non-accomplice testimony is sufficient to corroborate Aldape's accomplice testimony.
In conducting a sufficiency review under the accomplice witness rule, an appellate court must eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration, and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). "Tendency to connect" is the sufficiency standard, rather than rational sufficiency. Id.; see also Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462-463 (). In determining the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances. Munoz v. State, 853 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc). Setting aside the accomplice testimony, all of the other facts and circumstances in evidence may be looked to for corroboration, and the corroborative evidence may be circumstantial or direct. Gosch v. State, 829 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). If the combined weight of the non-accomplice evidence tends to connect the defendant to the offense, the requirement of article 38.14 has been fulfilled. Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462 (citing Gosch, 829 S.W.2d at 777). If the non-accomplice evidence does not tend to connect the defendant to the offense, then the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and the defendant must be acquitted. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.17 (Vernon 1979); see Munoz, 853 S.W.2d at 560.
As discussed in detail supra, Aldape confessed to killing Trinidad Hernandez and testified at trial that Garcia hired him to kill Trinidad. The jury's verdict of guilt is based on both the accomplice and non-accomplice witness testimony. Aldape's accomplice testimony constitutes direct evidence which, if sufficiently corroborated and believed by the jury, would be sufficient to support Garcia's conviction for capital murder. See Meador v. State, 811 S.W.2d 612, 621 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1989), aff'd, 812 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The non-accomplice testimony need only tend to connect Garcia to Trinidad's murder, it need not be independently sufficient to support a finding of guilt. Id.; Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462.
Setting aside Aldape's accomplice testimony, and the testimony of Rodriguez,2 we conclude the State presented sufficient corroborating evidence to connect Garcia to the commission of Trinidad Hernandez's murder. Ana Hernandez, Trinidad's wife, testified that her husband was involved with Garcia in a drug trafficking business. Three witnesses testified to a confrontation between Garcia and Trinidad that occurred three to four weeks before Trinidad's murder. Jose Hernandez, Trinidad's brother, testified he was present when Garcia confronted Trinidad at his home about three or four weeks before the murder, and he saw a gun in Garcia's waistband during the argument. Jose testified that Garcia told him to tell Trinidad to "give me my stuff back and everything is going to be alright," and that Trinidad later said the "stuff" was marihuana. Evaristo Sandoval, another brother of Trinidad's, testified he was also present when Garcia argued with Trinidad about one month before the murder. He heard Garcia say, "I want my drugs back." Finally, Cynthia Guerrero, the wife of Jose Hernandez, testified she heard Garcia tell Jose to "get the works for me," or "deliver me the merchandise," during this same argument with Trinidad. All three versions of the prior confrontation between Garcia and Trinidad were substantially the same.
The evidence of an existing business relationship between Garcia and Trinidad, and a prior confrontation between them over missing marihuana within one month of the murder, connects Garcia to Trinidad and supplies a motive for Garcia to solicit Trinidad's murder. Evidence of motive alone is not sufficient to corroborate accomplice witness testimony, but may be considered along with other evidence tending to connect the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial