Alex Molina v. State, 450 S.W.3d 540

Appellant Alex Molina was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The offenses occurred July 24, 2011, at La Cave in Harris County, involving Vargas, Sandoval, Hernandez, Molina, Garcia, Salinas, and others.
A AK-47 was used; Vargas and Hernandez died, Sandoval survived; no weapon was found in the Impala.
After arrest, Molina gave a recorded statement; trial occurred with multiple witnesses including Sandoval and Lashunda Philio.
Molina challenged suppression of parts of his statement, the jury charge, confrontation of an expert, cross-examination for bias, and exclusion of evidence of a prior act by a complainant; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of statement after invoking counsel	Molina unambiguously invoked right to counsel.	Invocation was not clear and unambiguous; suppression limited.	No clear invocation; first issue overruled.
Jury charge on self-defense and parties	Charge should apply law of parties to self-defense/defense of third persons.	No preservation; egregious harm not shown.	No egregious harm; issue overruled.
Confrontation and cross-examination of expert	Bullcoming/Burch require confrontation of the testifying expert.	Expert independently analyzed data and was cross-examined; distinguishable.	No Confrontation Clause violation; issue overruled.
Cross-examination of witness bias	Should be allowed to explore bias from pending federal charges.	No sufficient link showing potential bias; court did not abuse.	No abuse; issue overruled.
Exclusion of evidence of prior act of aggression by complainant	Evidence admissible to show violent character of victim.	Evidence not preserved; hearsay issue not properly challenged.	Not preserved for review; issue overruled.

Gobert v. State, 275 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (objective standard for invoking counsel during interrogation)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report as testimonial; surrogate testimony not allowed)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (invocation analysis for right to counsel)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review for suppressions ruling)
Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (harm analysis for defensive instruction in charge)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm standard for charge errors)