Amador Rodriguez v. State
07-14-00407-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2016Background
- Early morning domestic-disturbance 911 calls reported a male assaulting a female in a blue SUV at a convenience-store gas pump. Two separate callers reported the incident.
- Officers Willhelm and Holt, in marked cars and uniform, arrived and observed the blue SUV (Appellant’s vehicle) in the lot; Willhelm signaled and Holt positioned his car behind the SUV.
- The driver ignored officers, opened the passenger door while the female tried to exit, nearly collided with Willhelm, then fled in the SUV; officers pursued with lights/siren activated.
- The high-speed chase through a residential area involved running ~18 stop signs and at least one red light, speeds of 60–100+ mph, forcing other cars to take evasive action; the SUV crashed in a construction zone and the driver fled on foot.
- Appellant was apprehended via thermal imaging. A jury convicted him of evading arrest (third-degree felony, with two prior-felony enhancements), made an affirmative deadly-weapon finding (use of vehicle), and the court assessed 45 years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of detention / sufficiency for evading arrest | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain; therefore evading element fails | Officers were dispatched for a domestic disturbance involving a male in a blue vehicle, acted in marked cars/uniforms, and objectively had articulable facts to detain | Court: detention lawful; evidence sufficient to support evading conviction |
| Deadly-weapon special issue (vehicle as deadly weapon & sentencing scheme) | Inclusion caused egregious harm; statutory scheme in §38.04 should control over §12.35(c) and preclude deadly-weapon finding/enhancement | Vehicle used in a manner capable of causing death/serious injury; current §38.04 classifies evading with a vehicle as a third-degree felony, so deadly-weapon finding is proper | Court: no charge error; evidence supported deadly-weapon finding; statutory argument rejected because evading-with-vehicle is a third-degree felony under amended §38.04 |
| Admissibility of 911 calls — hearsay | 911 recordings are hearsay and inadmissible | Calls described an ongoing event and were admissible under the present-sense-impression exception | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; 911 calls admitted as present sense impressions (non-testimonial) |
| Confrontation Clause & cumulative error | Admission of 911 calls violated Sixth Amendment right to confront and, combined with other errors, caused cumulative constitutional harm | Calls were non-testimonial emergency reports; no reversible cumulative error because contested rulings were proper | Court: Confrontation Clause not violated (calls non-testimonial under Davis/Bryant); no cumulative-error reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Delafuente v. State, 414 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative detention)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (articulable facts must be more than a hunch)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (objective totality-of-circumstances test for stops)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency review standard)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon depending on use)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (deadly-weapon finding supported by reckless high-speed evasion)
- Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (requirements for deadly-weapon finding)
- McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (no intent required for vehicle-as-weapon finding)
- Fischer v. State, 252 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (present-sense impression exception minimizes risk of faulty memory/insincerity)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (911 calls during ongoing emergency are generally non-testimonial)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (assessment of ongoing emergency and primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)