Carlos Omar Villanueva v. the State of Texas
14-19-00893-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 16, 2021Background
- Carlos Omar Villanueva was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon arising from robberies at the same apartment complex; jury convicted him on the Nieto count but acquitted on the Carino count.
- Pretrial, Villanueva moved to suppress Nieto’s identification from a six-photo array; the trial court denied the motion without written findings.
- Detective Jeremy Curtis created the array using Villanueva’s booking photo and five other Hispanic males with similar features; the array was randomized by software.
- Officer David De Torres (who testified he did not know the suspect’s identity) administered the array to Nieto in Spanish; Nieto circled Villanueva’s photo.
- Officer Sergio Garcia had earlier told Nieto the suspect was bald, but the array included a different bald person that Nieto did not select.
- Villanueva appealed only the denial of the suppression motion, arguing the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive; the court of appeals affirmed and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial photo array was impermissibly suggestive such that Nieto’s identification should be suppressed | Villanueva: Officer Garcia told Nieto the suspect was bald, making the procedure suggestive and likely to produce misidentification | State: Array contained multiple similar-looking Hispanic males, was randomized, prepared to match appellant’s description, and was administered by an officer unaware of the suspect; Garcia did not point out a photo | Court: The procedure was not impermissibly suggestive; denial of suppression upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (pretrial identification may be so suggestive as to deny due process)
- Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (two-step test: suggestiveness then reliability)
- Fisher v. State, 525 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (factors for assessing suggestiveness and lineup composition)
- Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (totality-of-circumstances assessment for reliability)
- Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (admission of identification analyzed under totality of the circumstances)
- Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (standard of review for suppression hearings)