Angelita Rodriguez Pacheco v. State
03-14-00676-CR
Tex. App.Nov 25, 2015Background
- Appellant Angelita Rodriguez Pacheco was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation for entering hotel rooms and committing theft; appeal from Burnet County conviction.
- Victims (Alderete and Arguello) testified they did not consent to Appellant entering their rooms and would not have consented if they knew property would be taken.
- Appellant worked briefly at the Hill Country Inn; coworker Melina Escobar (trainer) testified she opened doors for Appellant while training her and on the day property went missing Escobar left Appellant alone in rooms.
- State argued Appellant induced entry by fraud (posing as a housekeeper) so any apparent consent was ineffective; defense argued Appellant had apparent consent and blamed Escobar or others for thefts.
- At punishment, the court excluded testimony from Raul Munoz about Appellant’s lifetime felony-history (relevance/competency), prompting Appellant to testify; she later claimed Fifth Amendment compulsion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pacheco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that entry was without effective consent | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports that Appellant induced consent by fraud and entered without effective consent | Appellant contended she had apparent/authorized consent (as hotel employee or via Escobar) so evidence insufficient | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supported inference Appellant used fraud to obtain access; consent thus ineffective; conviction stands (Jackson/Hooper standard) |
| Jury charge definition of "effective consent" | Omission of statutory phrase "person legally authorized to act for the owner" was harmless; charge and arguments made fraud-induced ineffectiveness clear | Appellant argued omission undermined defensive theory and charge misstatements (including tautological "assent in fact" instruction) | No reversible error: no objection at trial; no egregious harm shown under Almanza; charge adequate |
| Exclusion of Raul Munoz’s testimony on probation eligibility | Munoz lacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify that Appellant never had a felony conviction; trial court properly excluded under Rules 602/701 | Appellant argued Munoz’s testimony reasonably supported jury probation-eligibility finding and should have been admitted | Affirmed: trial court within discretion to exclude; Munoz’s limited knowledge inadequate to support the required inference |
| Claim that exclusion forced Appellant to testify (Fifth Amendment) | No State misconduct compelled testimony; Munoz’s testimony was properly excluded; Appellant voluntarily waived privilege when she testified | Appellant claimed she felt compelled to testify only because Munoz was excluded and thus her waiver was not voluntary | Affirmed: Appellant voluntarily elected to testify with full understanding; exclusion did not violate Fifth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and circumstantial-evidence guidance)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional standard for evidence sufficiency)
- Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (fraud renders apparent consent ineffective)
- Gordon v. State, 633 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (consent obtained by pretense can be ineffective for burglary)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious-harm standard for unpreserved jury-charge error)
- Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (framework for assessing harm from jury-charge error)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits on lay-opinion testimony tied to witness perception)
- Trevino v. State, 577 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (when probation-eligibility testimony supports submission to jury)