Leleo v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 01-20-00034-CR,01-20-00035-CR |
| Parties | JAMES LELEO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1544687, 1544688
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
A jury convicted Appellant James Leleo of intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid and assessed his punishment at eighteen years in prison on the intoxication manslaughter charge and twenty years in prison on the failure to stop and render aid charge, both sentences to run concurrently. Appellant raises eleven issues on appeal. He argues (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his convictions for intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid, (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the admission of relevant evidence (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress his blood toxicology results and DNA, (4) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of improper and irrelevant victim-impact testimony and a photograph of the decedent during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, (5) the trial court was biased against him and abused its discretion when it denied his request for a Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 jury instruction, (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his counsel the opportunity to review and provide input in response to jury requests made during the guilt-innocence phase deliberations and when it denied him adequate time to secure the presence of punishment-phase witnesses, (7) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request "to question witnesses outside the presence of the jury regarding the chain of custody of the two blood tubes and blood draws," (8) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront two of the State's witnesses, (9) the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing on his motion for new trial, (10) the trial court abused its discretion "when it did not allow Appellant to ask questions of a witness in an offer of proof or in front of the jury," and (11) he is entitled to a new trial because the trial judge was biased against him.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Rosalia Padilla ("Padilla") was driving to mass in the early morning on Sunday, March 19, 2017, when the red Toyota Corolla ("Toyota") she was driving was struck by a black Volkswagen Passat ("Volkswagen"). Padilla was ejected from her car during the collision and died at the scene of the accident. The fire department, emergency medical services ("EMS"), and several officers arrived at the scene. Officers spoke to three witnesses and to Appellant James Leleo ("Appellant") and Jonah Lavatai ("Lavatai"), both of whom were riding in the Volkswagen. Appellant and Lavatai had spent the prior night at a bar and had just left an after-hours bar shortly before the accident. Appellant was arrested and charged with intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid.
Deputy A. Aguirre with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable's Office ("Deputy Aguirre") was the first officer on the scene. During trial, the State called him as its first witness. Deputy Aguirre testified he was on patrol and responded to a call involving a car crash around 7 a.m. on March 19, 2017, at the intersection of Imperial Valley Drive and Forton Drive. The fire department was already at the crash site when Deputy Aguirre arrived. He spotted Padilla's body lying on the northbound lanes of Imperial Valley Drive.
Deputy Aguirre testified there were two vehicles at the scene involved in the crash, and both had extensive damage to them. About fifteen minutes after he arrived, Deputy Aguirre was directing traffic and he saw a man who The man, who Deputy Aguirre identified as Appellant, was covered in sweat. Deputy Aguirre testified that Appellant was "about a hundred feet or so" from the scene when he first spotted him. Appellant told Deputy Aguirre that he had been a passenger in the vehicle.[1]
The State's second witness was Deputy J. Garcia ("Deputy Garcia") with the Harris County Sheriff's Office. He was also dispatched to the scene of the crash on the day of the collision. The fire department, EMS, and Precinct 4 constables were already at the scene when Deputy Garcia arrived.
Deputy Garcia testified he spoke to witnesses at the scene who told him two Hispanic males had fled from one of the cars involved in the crash. One of the males had a thin build and was wearing a gray shirt and blue jeans and the other male was heavy set and wearing a black shirt and blue jeans. According to Deputy Garcia, the heavyset male, later identified as Jonah Lavatai, had been hiding in the backyard of a nearby home. Deputy Garcia detained Lavatai and brought him back to the scene for further investigation. Deputy Garcia waited until the accident investigators arrived at the scene.
Sergeant D. Cheek-McNeal ("Sergeant Cheek-McNeal"), an accident investigator with the Harris County Sheriff's Office, also testified for the State. She explained she investigates accidents involving serious bodily injury and death. As part of her investigation, she looks for intoxication in drivers and for evidence of traffic violations.
On March 19, 2017, Sergeant Cheek-McNeal was dispatched to the scene of a major vehicle crash at Imperial Valley Drive and Forton Drive. Upon arriving, she was informed that two parties had fled the scene. According to Sergeant Cheek-McNeal, she observed a two-vehicle crash involving a black Volkswagen four-door vehicle and a red Toyota Corolla. When she first surveyed the crash scene, it appeared to Sergeant Cheek-McNeal that the Toyota had been pulling out from a stop sign and it had been struck by the Volkswagen. It "was a high-velocity crash, a very high-speed collision." She testified there had only been one occupant in the Toyota, Rosalia Padilla, and she was deceased.
Sergeant Cheek-McNeal testified that the first thing she does as part of an accident investigation is to gather statements from individuals identified as occupants of the vehicles involved in the crash and witnesses at the scene. When she arrived at the scene, Deputy K. Price[2] told her there were three witnesses and she spoke to all three.[3] According to Sergeant Cheek-McNeal, the witnesses reported seeing two males running from the Volkswagen, and both men were considered suspects because authorities on the scene did not know who was driving the Volkswagen. At that point, law enforcement only knew that the two identified men had been in the Volkswagen and fled the scene. The two men were later identified as Appellant and Lavatai. On redirect, Sergeant Cheek-McNeal testified she had no reason to believe there were more than two occupants in the Volkswagen when the collision occurred.[4]
The witnesses' statements were not consistent as to which of the two suspects was the driver of the Volkswagen. Sergeant Cheek-McNeal explained that it is not unusual for witnesses to give differing accounts of an accident because accident scenes are very volatile and often people are in shock. After speaking to the three witnesses, Sergeant Cheek-McNeal spoke to Deputy L. Anders ("Deputy Anders"), who had also been dispatched to the scene and arrived after Sergeant Cheek-McNeal.
Sergeant Cheek-McNeal also spoke to Appellant and Lavatai as part of her investigation. Appellant told her that his grandmother owned the Volkswagen. Sergeant Cheek-McNeal testified that she smelled alcohol on Appellant's breath. She determined Appellant had been driving the Volkswagen at the time of the collision based on her interviews of the Appellant, Lavatai, and the three witnesses on the scene. In reaching her conclusion that Appellant was the driver, Sergeant Cheek-McNeal also considered physical evidence, including the presence and location of seatbelt marks on Appellant's and Lavatai's bodies, and the locking position of the seatbelts on the Volkswagen.
According to Sergeant Cheek-McNeal, a seatbelt mark is basically bruising. She explained that if a driver presses hard on the brake, the seatbelt will lock in place to stop the occupant from striking something or lunging forward. She testified that the marks are typically faint because they must go through the clothing and tend to fade quickly. The seatbelt marks Sergeant Cheek-McNeal observed on Appellant and Lavatai suggested Appellant had been seated on the driver side of the Volkswagen and Lavatai on the passenger side at the time of the collision. Sergeant Cheek-McNeal acknowledged that Appellant's seatbelt marks placed him on the driver's side of the Volkswagen, but not necessarily in the driver's seat.
Sergeant Cheek-McNeal also inspected the Volkswagen. The Volkswagen's front seat airbags had been deployed and they were removed to test for the presence of DNA. Sergeant Cheek-McNeal also inspected the Volkswagen's seatbelts...
To continue reading
Request your trial