Renteria v. State
Decision Date | 04 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. AP-74829.,AP-74829. |
Citation | 206 S.W.3d 689 |
Parties | David RENTERIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Scott Segall, El Paso, for appellant.
John L. Davis, Asst. D.A., J. Landon K. Schmidt, Asst. D.A., El Paso, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for state.
A jury convicted appellant of murdering a child under the age of six years. The trial court sentenced appellant to death pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues submitted at the punishment phase. Appellant raises twenty-two points of error in this direct appeal. We will affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant was a 32 year-old registered sex offender on probation for committing an indecency offense against an eight-year-old girl when he was arrested for the murder of the five-year-old girl in this case. On November 18, 2001, this five-year-old victim disappeared from a Wal-Mart store where she was shopping with her parents. The next day, her nude, partially burned body with a partially burned plastic bag over her head was discovered in an alley sixteen miles from the Wal-Mart. When she was set on fire, she already had been manually strangled. The medical examiner testified that the victim also received two blows to her head. The medical examiner also testified that the victim could have been sexually assaulted, although he found no physical evidence of sexual assault.
Appellant's palm print matched a latent palm print that was lifted from the plastic bag covering the victim's head. A search of appellant's van revealed blood stains containing the victim's DNA. Appellant and his van were at the Wal-Mart when the victim disappeared. A Wal-Mart security guard briefly spoke to appellant, and Wal-Mart surveillance cameras showed a man wearing a light-colored hat, a dark shirt, and dark shorts walking out with the victim. Earlier that day appellant, wearing clothes very similar to those worn by the man walking out of the Wal-Mart store, had been at a nearby Sam's store with his father. While at Sam's, appellant purchased oranges, and the victim's autopsy revealed pieces of orange wedges in her stomach.
Appellant was arrested on December 3, 2001, and he gave a written custodial statement to the police. This statement was not admitted into evidence at appellant's trial. In this statement, appellant claimed that an "Azteca" gang member nicknamed "Flaco," whom appellant had known in jail, and several other persons, whom appellant did not know, were primarily responsible for the victim's murder. Appellant claimed that he helped these people commit the offense out of fear they would harm his family. He also claimed that his involvement in the offense was limited to luring the victim out of the Wal-Mart and helping "Flaco" and the others dispose of and burn her body after the others had murdered her. At the end of his December 3rd statement, appellant made what he characterizes as an expression of remorse.1 Appellant stated:
First of all, I want to mention my deepest sympathy for the family. It is a tragedy that should never have happened, young or old. I want to say that my participation in this was due to the fact that I was in fear of my family's life. These guys just knew too much and they came at me full force. I was just looking for a way for my family not to be hurt. God I wish there was something I could do to make this different for everybody. Right now I am just hoping that my family will be protected from those that attempt to harm them. I am right now feeling deep confusion and not knowing what other person would have done in my shoes or circumstances. I hope that the individuals responsible are brought to justice. I hope that somebody out there does know a little bit more about this and does come out and forth.[2]
Appellant argues in his sixth point of error that he was denied the protections of the Sixth and Eighth Amendments and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause when, at the punishment phase of trial, the trial court would not permit him to use this remorse evidence during cross-examination of a State expert witness. The record from the punishment phase reflects that the State presented the expert testimony of Dr. Gripon, who testified, based on supported-by-the-record hypotheticals, that a person like appellant would be a future danger to society in part because this hypothetical person was unremorseful.
That's not a lot of information, and you don't have a lot to work with there, so that's kind of limited. But certainly it appears as though they're going on with their normal day-to-day activity even though they've had a rather extraordinary day.
The defense wanted to use the remorse evidence during its cross-examination of Gripon for the purpose of asking whether Gripon's opinion would change if the hypothetical person had expressed remorse. During a lengthy hearing outside the jury's presence on the admissibility of the remorse evidence, the defense claimed that the State had opened the door to its admission because the State's questioning of Gripon left the jury with a false impression that appellant had not expressed remorse (for example, the defense claimed that "since they have opened the door to claiming that he has never shown any remorse we are requesting that that statement come in and be able to cross-examine the doctor about the impact of that statement of his statement that there's no remorse"). The defense also claimed that, even if the State had not opened the door to the remorse evidence, this evidence nevertheless met the test of "relevancy" rendering it admissible, as a matter of federal constitutional law and as a matter of state statutory law, without regard to whether any other evidentiary rule (such as hearsay) excluded it (for example, the defense claimed "that the rules of hearsay do not apply in keeping out relevant information in front of this jury"). The trial court excluded the remorse evidence, but ruled that the defense could ask Gripon hypothetical questions concerning remorse.
The defense elicited testimony from Gripon that an expression of remorse by the hypothetical person "within, say two weeks of the alleged incident" would be "looked upon favorably, and it would tend to humanize this hypothetical individual, and it would tend to be a positive thing as opposed to the absence of remorse."
During its closing jury arguments, the State emphasized that its hypothetical to Gripon was "complete" and later emphasized that appellant had not expressed "the slightest bit of remorse."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Abdullah
...670 (2003) ; Moeller v. Weber, 689 N.W.2d 1, 18–22 (S.D.2004) ; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 311–12 (Tenn.2005) ; Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689, 709 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) ; Morrisette v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 270 Va. 188, 613 S.E.2d 551, 556 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 122......
-
Newton v. State
...the jury or had but a slight effect, and thus hold that the error was harmless. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689, 706 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Shuffield, 189 S.W.3d at 791; Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3......
-
Thomas v. Director
...in a form acceptable to the law of evidence before he is entitled to insist that it be received over objection." Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).10 SHCR 3583-84. The TCCA subsequently denied Petitioner's state application for a writ of habeas corpus on the tria......
-
Renteria v. Davis
...18, 2001, a five-year-old girl named Alexandra Flores disappeared from a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas. See Renteria v. State (Renteria I), 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (providing a detailed summary of the facts). The next day, her nude, partially burned body was discovered in an......
-
Evidence
...with a witness, the party has opened the door to evidence from the opposing party to rebut the false impression. Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (the defendant should have been allowed to introduce the part of his written statement where he expressed remorse for the......
-
Trial Motions
...abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance. Heiselbetz v. State , 906 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995); Renteria v. State , 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006). Case-law requires more than speculation to justify an appellate reversal of a case for a trial court’s failure to grant a......
-
Evidence
...with a witness, the party has opened the door to evidence from the opposing party to rebut the false impression. Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (the defendant should have been allowed to introduce the part of his written statement where he expressed remorse for the......
-
Punishment Phase
...appellate courts analyze the error for constitutional harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a). See Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689, 698 & n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (applying Rule 44.2(a) harmless error analysis to erroneous exclusion of mitigation evidence); Tennard v. Dretk......