Balderas, Juan A/K/A Apache
AP-77,036
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- In December 2005 Juan Balderas, a member of the La Tercera Crips (BTA subset), was accused of entering an apartment and fatally shooting Eduardo Hernandez; a jury convicted him of capital murder in February 2014 and sentenced him to death.
- Eyewitness Wendy Bardales initially told police she had not seen the shooter, but within days identified Balderas from a photo array and later made an in-court identification; defense attacked reliability and suggestiveness of the photo array.
- Physical and circumstantial evidence: Balderas was seen near the scene after the shooting saying “finally got him,” changed a magazine, and ten days later police seized a handgun from boxes he was carrying that ballistics matched to the murder weapon; a shell casing was found in his pocket when arrested.
- Pretrial delay: Balderas was held in custody from December 2005 until trial in March 2014; much of the multi-year delay involved docket congestion, prosecutor reassignment, defense investigations/plea negotiations, and the State’s eventual decision to seek death after learning additional inmate conduct.
- Interpreter/confrontation dispute: the trial court permitted Wendy to testify through a Spanish interpreter over defense objection; the court found an “inherent language barrier” and ruled an interpreter would give the jury a more accurate view.
- Post-verdict events: jurors reported that a spectator (Balderas’s brother) waved/smirked at them while they were being bused to the hotel; the trial court held a hearing, questioned jurors, denied a mistrial, and polled the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Balderas’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Wendy’s ID was unreliable/inconsistent; evidence insufficient to prove identity or intent | Cumulative eyewitness ID plus flight, statements, and ballistic match support guilt | Conviction upheld — evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to verdict |
| Speedy trial (Barker) | 8+ year delay violated Sixth Amendment; prejudice from long incarceration and lost witnesses | Delay largely attributable to defense investigation/plea negotiations and docket issues; defendant delayed asserting the right | Denied — although delay was long, Barker factors balanced against dismissal because defense requested much delay and asserted right late |
| Use of interpreter / Confrontation Clause | Appointing interpreter (Wendy spoke English) blocked face-to-face confrontation and impaired credibility assessment | Interpreter necessary because Wendy was more comfortable in Spanish; it enabled meaningful cross-examination and accurate testimony | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; interpreter did not violate Sixth Amendment |
| Exclusion of audio recording (impeachment) | Recording of Wendy identifying Balderas should have been admitted to impeach her English fluency and credibility | Recording was cumulative and trial testimony already permitted impeachment; judge properly excluded it under rules | Denied — exclusion did not deprive defendant of meaningful opportunity to cross-examine |
| Alleged juror tampering / outside influence | Brother’s wave/smirk outside bus intimidated jurors and likely coerced holdouts into guilty verdict | Contact was minimal, jurors said it did not affect deliberations, and court conducted hearing/poll | Denied — court did not abuse discretion; presumption of prejudice rebutted by juror testimony and conduct record |
| Suppression of ID / photo lineup suggestiveness | Photo array was impermissibly suggestive (Balderas unique hoodie/mark); later reinforcement made in-court ID unreliable | Photo array and subsequent identification were reliable under totality; in-court ID cumulative of viewing shooter and prior IDs | Denied — trial court reasonably found array not impermissibly suggestive and in-court ID admissible |
| Jury readbacks (Art. 36.28) | Court refused to read requested portion of Ruland’s testimony on Wendy’s credibility | Jury’s notes did not show a specific dispute as required; judge properly asked for clarification and acted within discretion | Denied — no abuse of discretion in declining the readback as requested |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumption of prejudice for unauthorized contact with juror; State bears burden to show harmlessness)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (face-to-face confrontation principle)
- Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (photo-array suggestiveness and Biggers factors analysis)
- Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (appointment of interpreter for material witness under confrontation principles)