Eduardo Mora-Hernandez v. State
03-13-00548-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- In August 2012 skeletal remains of Margaret Ann Robles were found in an Austin park; autopsy suggested blunt-force trauma but decomposition limited conclusions.
- Police focused on Eduardo Mora-Hernandez, Robles’s ex-boyfriend and last known person to see her alive.
- Prosecutors obtained historical cell-site-location records from Mora-Hernandez’s carrier by court order (no search warrant) and used them at trial to place his phone near the park.
- Detectives interviewed Mora-Hernandez twice at the station on the same day; he was not Mirandized, and during the second interview he said he needed a lawyer but continued and made incriminating statements.
- Trial evidence included a close-up color photograph of the skeletal remains and testimony from a police crime-analyst who mapped cell-site data.
- Jury convicted Mora-Hernandez of manslaughter (lesser-included offense), sentenced to 20 years; he appealed challenging suppression and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mora-Hernandez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether historical cell-site/location records obtained without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Warrantless collection of cell-site-location records violated his reasonable expectation of privacy | No reasonable expectation of privacy in third-party carrier’s historical cell-site records; third-party doctrine applies | Denied suppression; court followed Ford v. State — no reasonable expectation of privacy in such records |
| Whether statements made during second interview should be suppressed as post-invocation custodial interrogation (Miranda) | He invoked right to counsel during the second interview; interrogation was custodial so statements inadmissible | The interview was noncustodial under an objective reasonable-person test; Miranda not triggered | Denied suppression; court found objective circumstances supported noncustodial finding |
| Whether a close-up photograph of the decomposed remains was more prejudicial than probative (Rule 403) | Photograph was gruesome and prejudicial, added little probative value | Photo was probative of timing/location of death, decomposition, and consistency with other evidence; not needlessly cumulative | Admitted; court concluded probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice |
| Whether the crime-analyst was qualified to offer cell-site mapping and interpretation (Rule 702) | Analyst lacked necessary mathematical/technical qualifications to prepare/interpret maps | Analyst had relevant training, courses, 44 case experiences, used software to map carrier data; qualifications sufficient to assist jury | Admitted testimony; court did not abuse discretion in finding analyst qualified |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (historical cell-site-location records held by carrier not protected by reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for warnings and privileges against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once right to counsel is invoked, police must cease questioning until counsel is present)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (distinguishing privacy interests in cell-phone contents and need for warrant to search phone itself)