Alfonso Alonzo Rodriguez v. State
11-14-00340-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Appellant Alfonso Rodriguez was convicted of murder; jury assessed 99 years and a $10,000 fine.
- Altercation on Sept. 21–22, 2013: Rodriguez and his stepfather went to the victim’s yard after heated texts; victim was stabbed and later died. Eyewitnesses Galindo and Mora testified that the victim was unarmed and Rodriguez stabbed him. Physical evidence placed victim’s blood by trees and Pacheco’s blood by the curb.
- Rodriguez testified he stabbed the victim in self-defense after being struck with a golf club while aiding Pacheco; on cross-examination he admitted differences between his trial testimony and earlier statements to police.
- Detective Sims interviewed Rodriguez; the interview was recorded, Miranda warnings were given, and Rodriguez waived rights, according to the detective.
- On appeal Rodriguez raised four issues challenging portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument (vouching, introducing facts not in evidence, inflammatory language) and the admission of Rodriguez’s statements to police under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor vouched for State’s case (closing) | Remarks were reasonable deductions from the evidence and responsive to defense | Comments improperly vouched and bolstered State witnesses | Not preserved by contemporaneous objection; on the merits court found remarks permissible as deductions/answers to defense |
| Prosecutor stated facts not in evidence (closing: "knife out by his side") | Statement was a reasonable inference from Rodriguez’s admissions and the evidence | Comment injected new, unproven facts into closing | Not preserved; court held inference was reasonable from record and not improper |
| Prosecutor used inflammatory language ("thieves in the night") | Single fleeting reference, not calculated to deprive fair trial and did not inject harmful new facts | Comment was defamatory, improper name-calling requiring reversal | Not preserved; even on merits, single use not reversible given evidence and lack of harm |
| Admission of defendant’s statements to Detective Sims (Article 38.22) | Statements admissible; State complied with art. 38.22 recording and waiver requirements | Admission violated Article 38.22 and defendant was entitled to jury resolution of compliance issues | Not preserved by specific objection; trial record shows compliance with art. 38.22 and no factual dispute requiring jury submission |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (contemporaneous objection requirements to preserve jury-argument error)
- Jordan v. State, 646 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (prosecutor may strike hard blows but not foul ones)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (categories of permissible jury argument)
- Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (prosecutor may not vouch by giving unsworn testimony)
- Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (comment on defendant’s failure to produce evidence is proper)
- Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (prosecutor cannot present evidence outside the record in argument)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (objection must identify specific article 38.22 violation to preserve error)
- Aldaba v. State, 382 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (where evidence raises a factual dispute about custodial warnings/waiver, jury must decide compliance)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for admissibility of custodial statements and jury issues under art. 38.22)