Cage Chaparro v. State
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12075
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Cage Chaparro, arrested at 16 and later tried as an adult, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly-weapon finding and sentenced to 50 years after pleading true to an enhancement.
- Multiple similar home-invasion/robbery incidents occurred in a six-day span in October 2012; suspects wore white Halloween masks, gloves, used a shotgun and knife, and one wore a distinctive letter jacket.
- Stolen property, masks, and gloves were recovered from vehicles and Chaparro’s residence; forensic testing matched Chaparro’s DNA to gloves and a mask from the extraneous incidents, and witnesses placed him (or his jacket) at scenes.
- Co-defendant Ethan Greenlee testified (under immunity) that Chaparro admitted participating in several robberies and asked him to pawn stolen items; the defense argued Chaparro’s brother was the perpetrator.
- The State sought to admit evidence of three extraneous robberies at the guilt/innocence phase to prove identity/modus operandi; the trial court admitted them with a limiting instruction. On appeal Chaparro argued admission was unnecessary and unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chaparro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b)/403 to prove identity | Extraneous robberies show a distinctive modus operandi and are probative of identity; identity was contested so State needed the evidence | Evidence was unnecessary because State could convict under law of parties and had testimony (Greenlee) tying Chaparro; admission was unfairly prejudicial and used for character conformity | Court affirmed admission: identity was contested and extraneous incidents (similar timing, masks, gloves, weapons, jacket, recovered property, DNA) were probative; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 404(b) is one of inclusion)
- Johnston v. State, 145 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (extraneous offenses admissible for non‑propensity purposes)
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court balances relevance to material issues for extraneous offenses)
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Rule 403 presumption favoring admission of relevant evidence)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defining "unfair prejudice" under Rule 403)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
- Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous offenses may prove identity; modus operandi analysis)
- Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (need to show similarity when identity contested)
- Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (identity as a material issue supports extraneous-offense admission)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (witness testimony under immunity viewed with caution)