Mendoza v. State
| Decision Date | 30 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-16-00100-CR,05-16-00100-CR |
| Parties | MARIA MENDOZA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Appellant Maria Mendoza appeals her conviction for causing serious bodily injury to her thirty-three-month old daughter, Z.M., leading to her death. In two issues, appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction, and the trial court erred in admitting the contents of her statements to police. We affirm appellant's conviction. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
Appellant was the mother of five children, including Z.M. who suffered from a chromosomal defect known as Turner Syndrome. As a result of her chromosomal defect, Z.M. spent the first four to five months of her life in the hospital, during which time she underwent surgeries to address a variety of medical issues. Once Z.M. was released from the hospital, she began working with physical, speech, and occupational therapists. Although Z.M.'s motor skills were improving with therapy, at the time of her death, she could not stand or walk on her own. She could only sit and scoot on her bottom.
Z.M. had one younger and three older siblings. During the day, appellant stayed home with the three youngest children, while the two oldest children attended school and appellant's husband worked at a restaurant.
On December 11, 2013, at approximately 10:30 a.m., appellant called her neighbor, who also has a child with Turner Syndrome, and asked for help, stating something was wrong with Z.M. It just so happened the neighbor's child's therapist was at the neighbor's home at the time. Appellant's neighbor and the therapist responded to appellant's call. When they arrived at appellant's apartment, they found Z.M. on the floor with her eyes closed. The neighbor called for an ambulance while the therapist performed CPR on Z.M. The attempts to revive Z.M. were unsuccessful, and Z.M. was pronounced dead at 11:23 a.m.
Due to the nature of Z.M.'s death, an autopsy was performed. The medical examiner ruled the cause of death homicide due to blunt force trauma. An investigation ensued, and police detectives asked appellant and her husband to come to the police station, which they did. One of the detectives, Detective Mayorca, spoke Spanish, the language spoken by appellant and her husband. The detectives interviewed appellant and her husband at the station. The interview was recorded. During the interview appellant indicated she was the only person in the care, custody, and control of Z.M. and admitted to having recently hit Z.M. on the head. At that point, the detectives stopped the interview and read appellant her Miranda rights. Appellant was arrested and charged by indictment with the capital murder of Z.M. She entered a plea of not guilty.
Both the State and appellant presented evidence at trial. In support of its case-in-chief, the State presented expert testimony concerning the nature of Z.M.'s injuries and the cause of her death, as well as testimony from Detective Wyatt concerning the investigation, and lay testimony concerning Z.M.'s appearance and behavior the day before her death and appellant's demeanor following Z.M.'s death.
As to the nature of Z.M.s injuries and the cause of her death, Dr. Ogden, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified she began the autopsy with an external examination of Z.M.'s body. In doing so, she noticed redness in both of Z.M.'s eyes, bruises on her eyelids, two bruises on the inside of her right elbow, bruises on the right and left sides of her head, abrasions or scabs throughout her scalp, a raised bruise on her left forehead, and bruises on the top of her ears—which, she indicated, is a "red flag" because it is not a typical place for bruising. The external examination revealed at least five different impact sites, four of which created internal bruises. The internal examination revealed blood in the right temporalis muscle of Z.M.'s brain, blood inside her skull, and a hematoma on the back of her head. Dr. Ogden explained that a great deal of force was required to cause these injuries. She believed the injuries that killed Z.M. occurred within four to twelve hours of her death. None of Z.M.'s injuries were consistent with Z.M. falling from a standing position onto carpet or bumping her head under the bed, two of the explanations appellant gave for Z.M.'s injuries. Z.M.'s injuries were consistent with being thrown against a bed or a wall or being beaten across the head. Dr. Ogden did not believe another child—specifically appellant's youngest son who appellant and others suggested had aggressive tendencies—could have caused the kind of injuries Z.M. suffered.
The State's other medical expert, Dr. Cox, a pediatrician specializing in child abuse cases, testified he reviewed Z.M.'s medical records, as well as the autopsy report and photos, andconcluded Z.M. was the victim of child abuse. He reached this conclusion due to the number of injuries Z.M. had and the fact that the injuries were localized to her head. He indicated that based upon Z.M.'s known developmental abilities, she could not have inflicted these injuries on herself. He explained ear bruising, such as that seen on Z.M., is a classic inflicted or abusive-type injury. In addition, he stated the fact that Z.M. had multiple impact sites is inconsistent with a single short fall, as reported by appellant immediately after Z.M. became non-responsive, or what would be a routine injury in a child Z.M.'s age. In his experience, when there truly is a single short fall the explanation for the injury does not change and corresponds to the injuries—usually injuries to a single site, which was not the case here.
Appellant's neighbor testified about her acquaintance with appellant and about the day of Z.M.'s death. She explained she often visited appellant at her apartment. She did not see appellant's husband often because he was usually working. During her visits, she usually saw appellant, Z.M., a baby girl, and appellant's youngest son. On the morning of December 11, 2013, appellant asked for her help by telephone because something was happening with Z.M. When she arrived at appellant's apartment, she noticed appellant was very frightened and nervous. She was surprised to find appellant had not yet called for an ambulance and did not ask her to call for one when she spoke with appellant on the phone. She viewed Z.M. laying on the floor in front of the couch. She asked appellant what had happened to Z.M. Appellant responded that Z.M. had been walking near the TV stand, threw up, and fell backwards. The story did not make sense to appellant's neighbor because she did not believe such a fall would have caused Z.M. to be unconscious and unresponsive, Z.M.'s body was near the door, not the TV stand, and there was no vomit on Z.M.'s clothing or on the floor.
The property manager for appellant's apartment complex testified she and her housekeeper and painter went over to appellant's apartment the day after Z.M. died to give theircondolences and support. The property manager testified that appellant looked nervous and scared and as if she was trying to cry. She described appellant's behavior as odd. She asked appellant what had happened to Z.M. and appellant first told her Z.M. was sick, she had heart problems and that she was throwing up and she choked on her vomit, and then told her she dropped Z.M., Z.M. fell from the walker, and Z.M. fell from the entertainment center. She wondered at the time why appellant was telling her so many different stories about what had occurred. She recalled leaving the apartment thinking that appellant had hurt her daughter.
Z.M.'s pediatric occupational therapist testified about Z.M.'s limited mobility, her appearance prior to her death, and appellant's treatment of her children. She had been Z.M.'s occupational therapist for seven months. She saw Z.M. twice a week for thirty minutes each time. She last saw Z.M. on the day before her death. At the time of her death, Z.M. could not crawl on her own and could sit with minimal assistance. She testified Z.M. was very cautious. She would stay in a sitting position because she was scared. She never saw Z.M. fall. According to Z.M.'s therapist, appellant was interested in Z.M.'s progress and very compliant, but showed her other children more attention than she showed Z.M. In the months prior to Z.M.'s death, appellant appeared tired. Sometimes Z.M. was inappropriately dressed for the weather. For instance, on a very cold day in November or December she was dressed in a spaghetti strap outfit. She recalled that near the time of her death, Z.M. did not appear to be bathed as frequently as she had been before.
Detective Wyatt, the investigating officer, testified he was dispatched because the hospital treating Z.M. was not sure what had precipitated her injury or death. He was advised that Z.M. suffered from a lot of health issues so he instructed the hospital to do a sudden-death report. The following day, after learning of the medical examiner's conclusion, he and Detective Mayorca went to appellant's apartment. They began by establishing a time line in order toascertain who was actually in charge of the child at the time of her death. They discovered appellant's husband worked from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. six days a week. Appellant told them that on the day of Z.M.'s death, her husband left for work at around 9 a.m. He had already taken the two older children to school at around 7 a.m. Appellant indicated she and the three youngest children were at the apartment sleeping. According to appellant, Z.M. began coughing and later—around nine...
To continue reading
Request your trial