Anthony Michael Longoria v. State, 01-15-00213-CR

Background

Anthony Longoria was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; an enhancement allegation (prior felony possession) was found true and punishment was 20 years' imprisonment.
Victim Branislav Kupresakovic testified intruders forced into his home; one intruder was shot and killed during the encounter; two suspects (Longoria and King) fled and were detained in a police car, where their conversation was recorded.
The State introduced evidence of alleged extraneous matters: a stolen handgun found near the scene (stolen from Wiley, Longoria’s hometown) and evidence that Longoria smoked marijuana.
The trial court, over defense objection, included an extraneous-offense limiting instruction in the jury charge.
During punishment, the court admitted a video/audio recording of the conversation in the patrol car; Longoria objected that the recording was not properly authenticated.
Longoria appealed, arguing (1–3) the limiting instruction was erroneous (violated Tex. R. Evid. 105, art. 36.14, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel) and (4) the patrol-car recording was not properly authenticated. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Longoria)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by including an extraneous-offense limiting instruction over objection	Instruction correctly states law; court may give limiting instruction sua sponte and it was applicable because extraneous evidence existed	Instruction improperly given because defense did not request it at admission and thus evidence was admitted for all purposes under Rule 105; inclusion violated Art. 36.14	No error — instruction was a correct statement of law applicable to the case and the court may give it despite lack of defendant request
Whether inclusion of the instruction violated Rule 105 / Art. 36.14	Rule 105 permits court to restrict evidence and instruct jury; Art. 36.14 requires charge to state law applicable to case	Because defense did not request limiting instruction at admission, the instruction was not "law applicable" and court exceeded its role in charge	No violation — instruction was appropriate and accurately stated the law; trial court did not err under Rule 105 or Art. 36.14
Whether the instruction violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel by overriding defense strategy	Inclusion did not deprive defendant of counsel; counsel objected and received ruling; instruction benefitted defendant	Trial court’s sua sponte inclusion undermined defense strategy to avoid highlighting extraneous matters to jury	No Sixth Amendment violation — objection was not sufficiently specific to preserve a Sixth Amendment claim and no egregious harm shown
Whether the patrol-car video/audio was improperly authenticated	Sergeant Clopton testified he heard the recording on the night of the arrest, explained vehicle recording equipment, identified exhibit as fair and accurate and testified it was not tampered with	Objected that sponsoring witness (Clopton) lacked personal knowledge of device functioning and chain; operator (Officer McHugh) should have authenticated	No abuse of discretion — testimony provided sufficient facts to permit a reasonable juror to find the recording authentic

Key Cases Cited

Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two-step jury-charge-error review and harmless-error framework)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (consider charge as whole when assessing error)
Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial court not obligated to give limiting instruction absent request but may do so sua sponte)
Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (same principle regarding limiting instructions and Rule 105)
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication standard: court need only find sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to determine authenticity)
Page v. State, 125 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (example of sufficient authentication of surveillance recording through testimony about recording system and copying process)