Aviles-Barroso v. State
477 S.W.3d 363
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- In 1992 Diana Garcia, her boyfriend Arturo, and six-year-old Angelo were victims of a home invasion; Angelo was kidnapped and later found dead. Police suspected a drug-related motive; Cruz‑Garcia was later identified as the sexual assailant by DNA and convicted.
- Santana (an accomplice) later implicated Rogelio Aviles‑Barroso (the appellant) as the other man who entered the apartment, participated in the kidnapping, and helped dispose of Angelo’s body.
- Aviles‑Barroso was located in Georgia in 2012; his recorded interview and subsequent phone call were used later in the investigation.
- While visiting prosecutors in 2012, Diana heard the recorded phone call and immediately identified the voice as that of the man who “did all the talking” during the 1992 crime; she later made in‑court photographic and in‑person identifications.
- Appellant moved to suppress the pretrial voice identification as impermissibly suggestive and unreliable (20‑year gap); the trial court denied the motion after hearing expert testimony on memory, trauma, and voice ID.
- Jury convicted appellant of capital murder; punishment assessed at life. On appeal appellant raised (1) identification-admissibility challenges, (2) sufficiency of the evidence (accomplice corroboration), and (3) challenges to several assessed court costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Aviles‑Barroso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of pretrial voice identification | The pretrial voice ID was reliable under the totality of the circumstances (Biggers factors); experts supported durability of traumatic sensory memories; no suggestive prompting. | Playing a single unfamiliar voice 20 years after the event was unduly suggestive and created a substantial likelihood of misidentification; no voice lineup/comparison; memory decay. | Court affirmed denial of suppression: procedure was not impermissibly suggestive in a way that produced substantial likelihood of misidentification; Biggers factors (opportunity, attention, description, certainty, time) weighed for admissibility. |
| 2. In‑court photographic and in‑person identification tainted by pretrial ID | State relied on in‑court ID as independent and permissible; trial counsel did not preserve the specific taint objection at trial. | In‑court ID was tainted by the allegedly suggestive pretrial voice ID and therefore inadmissible. | Court held claim waived (no timely trial objection on taint ground); in any event, trial court allowed controlled photo questioning and in‑court ID. |
| 3. Sufficiency of the evidence / accomplice corroboration | Diana’s identifications (voice + in‑court) and non‑accomplice evidence (photo from 1992, officer encounters, appellant’s statement to investigator) tend to connect appellant to the offense and corroborate Santana. | Without Diana’s ID evidence, only accomplice testimony remains and is insufficient; identifications were inadmissible. | Court held remaining non‑accomplice evidence (including Diana’s admissible ID) sufficiently corroborated Santana’s accomplice testimony; conviction supported. |
| 4. Challenged court costs | State argued costs are statutory court costs and compensatory; many fees are part of consolidated statutory assessments. | Several assessed fees either lack statutory authority as individually charged or are punitive and therefore required oral pronouncement. | Court modified judgment to delete $71.50 (fees improperly itemized separately) but affirmed other statutorily authorized court costs; court costs need not be orally pronounced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets out factors for evaluating reliability of pretrial identifications)
- Davis v. State, 180 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2005) (voice‑identification standards applied; single‑voice play may be problematic but admissibility is fact‑dependent)
- Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pretrial ID can be so suggestive as to deny due process)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court costs need not be orally pronounced; costs are compensatory)
- Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (even if procedure is suggestive, reliability under totality can render ID admissible)
- Santos v. State, 116 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (two‑step test for suggestive pretrial ID and substantial likelihood of misidentification)