Cynthia Torres Leal v. State
04-15-00058-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2015Background
- Appellant Cynthia Torres Leal was indicted for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine, 4–200 grams). She pleaded no contest and was later sentenced to 20 years; she appealed the denial of a pretrial motion seeking disclosure of a confidential informant (CI).
- Police obtained a search warrant after a CI reported seeing cocaine purchased at Leal’s residence within the 24 hours prior to the warrant; the affiant (Officer Pedro/ Peter Salinas) conducted surveillance and observed brief visits consistent with drug transactions.
- At the suppression/motion hearing Leal and co-defendant Mark Leal testified multiple people had access to the residence; Leal testified her sister Amanda Lopez left drugs at the house and that she was not the owner of the drugs.
- Officer Salinas testified the CI had provided reliable information in the past, that a controlled buy occurred, and that the CI was not present at execution and has not been disclosed; no photos/video from the CI corroborated the claim.
- Leal argued under Tex. R. Evid. 508(c)(2) that the CI was a material witness — an eyewitness to possession/sales — and thus the CI’s identity was necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Leal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to order disclosure of the CI's identity under Tex. R. Evid. 508(c)(2) | The State argued Leal failed to show how the CI’s identity would aid her defense and that the CI was not necessary to a fair determination because the CI only supplied information supporting probable cause for the warrant. | Leal argued the CI was an eyewitness and the only person who could corroborate whether Leal was the person possessing/selling the drugs; because the residence was non-exclusive, the CI’s testimony was necessary to establish or refute an affirmative link to the drugs. | Trial court denied the motion to disclose the CI (motion to reveal CI was overruled). |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 817 S.W.2d 69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (defendant need only make a plausible showing that informer could give testimony necessary to a fair determination)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (government privilege to shield informer yields when disclosure is relevant and helpful to defense or essential to a fair determination)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements and affirmative-link analysis for possession cases)
- Deshong v. State, 625 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (affirmative-link requirement when defendant not in exclusive possession)
- Ford v. State, 179 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (informant who only supplies probable-cause information and is not present at execution need not be disclosed)
- Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to establishing affirmative link in possession prosecutions)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing trial-court rulings)
- Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (review standard for informer-disclosure issues)
- Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (preservation-of-error requirements)
- Patterson v. State, 138 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (speculation that CI could identify other occupants is insufficient to require disclosure)
- Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors)