Domingo Amaro-Solis v. State
14-16-00484-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Domingo Amaro‑Solis was convicted of aggravated sexual assault after the complainant testified that he forced her at knife‑point, sexually assaulted her, and fled when a neighbor approached; appellant was sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment.
- After the assault, the complainant underwent a sexual‑assault examination; sperm fraction DNA testing produced a mixed profile in which appellant could not be excluded as a possible contributor to the minor component.
- Police witnesses and neighbors testified about signs of a struggle, the complainant’s emotional state, and appellant’s flight from the scene and from an officer, which the State argued showed consciousness of guilt.
- The State gave notice it would call three apartment residents who had prior interactions with appellant (knocking under the pretext of carpet inspection); appellant moved in limine to exclude their testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 404(b); the trial court overruled the objections and admitted the testimony.
- The resident testimony described appellant approaching other tenants posing as a carpet inspector, making them uneasy, and in one instance entering and questioning a woman about personal details; some residents did not identify appellant at trial.
- On appeal, Amaro‑Solis challenged admission of the residents’ testimony as inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401, 403, and 404(b); the court assumed error but reviewed under non‑constitutional harmless‑error standards and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Amaro‑Solis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) — prior acts evidence | Testimony shows plan, preparation, and intent (modus operandi) related to the charged offense | Testimony is improper character/propensity evidence and not admissible to prove conduct on the charged occasion | Court assumed error but held any admission harmless; conviction affirmed |
| Relevance under Rule 401 | Testimony makes the charged offense more probable (context, similar conduct at same complex) | Testimony not sufficiently probative of disputed issue and relies on non‑identifying witnesses | Court treated possible error as non‑constitutional and analyzed harm; harmless error found |
| Prejudice under Rule 403 | Probative value (intent, pattern) outweighs prejudice | Testimony was highly prejudicial and likely to inflame jurors against defendant | Court assumed admission erroneous but concluded it did not affect substantial rights (harmless) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate harmless‑error review considers the whole record and factors such as strength of other evidence, character of the error, and how State used the evidence)
- Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (flight can be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Werner v. State, 412 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (recognizes that even prejudicial evidence can be harmless when the remaining evidence of guilt is overwhelming)