Eduardo Salinas v. State
05-13-01666-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 31, 2015Background
- Eduardo Salinas was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault, each with an allegation he used a firearm; punishment was 14 years’ imprisonment on each count.
- Victims Sergio Martinez and Francisco Carrillo‑Guerrero testified Salinas brandished and pointed a gun, threatened to kill them, and at one point pointed the gun at Martinez’s small child; Martinez’s step‑daughter observed Salinas pointing a gun at Martinez’s head.
- Police arrested Salinas nearby with a child; officers performed safety checks in apartments but did not recover a gun and made no warranted searches.
- At trial the State introduced: (1) Officer Helm’s testimony recounting statements from Salinas’s nephew about a gun (over defense hearsay objections); and (2) a computer printout image of a gun admitted for demonstrative purposes (over defense objection).
- Salinas also challenged that the trial court failed to orally pronounce his sentences; the appeal was abated, the court later pronounced sentences in Salinas’s presence, and the appeals were reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of Officer Helm’s testimony recounting nephew’s statements (hearsay) | Salinas: testimony was hearsay offered to prove a gun existed and harmed him because eyewitness testimony was vague/inconsistent | State: testimony was not offered for truth but to explain police investigation; and similar confirming testimony was later admitted without objection | Assuming error, any error was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); no reversible harm shown |
| 2. Admission of printed computer image of a gun for demonstrative purposes | Salinas: image was speculative, prejudicial, and improperly suggested a gun existed when none was recovered | State: image was demonstrative only; not offered as the actual weapon | Assuming error, admission was harmless—image was demonstrative, witnesses described similar guns, and State never presented it as the actual weapon |
| 3. Failure to orally pronounce sentence in cause F‑1263779‑K | Salinas: sentence must be pronounced in defendant’s presence under art. 42.03 | State: agreed abatement and re‑pronouncement was appropriate remedy | Appeal abated; trial court later orally pronounced sentence in Salinas’s presence; issue is now moot |
| 4. Failure to orally pronounce sentence in cause F‑1263780‑K | Same as Issue 3 | Same as Issue 3 | Same disposition as Issue 3; moot after abatement and re‑pronouncement |
Key Cases Cited
- Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless‑error standard for substantial rights)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (error in evidence harmless when similar evidence admitted elsewhere without objection)
- Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (definition and analysis of substantial rights)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (harmless error when error had slight or no effect on jury)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (scope of harm analysis; examine record as whole)
- Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (considerations for harm review)
- Devis v. State, 18 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (demonstrative weapons harmless when actual weapon not recovered and image not presented as the real weapon)
- Meachum v. State, 273 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (abatement proper remedy when sentence not pronounced in defendant’s presence)
- Torres v. State, 116 S.W.3d 208 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003) (definition and use of demonstrative evidence)
Outcome: Trial court judgments affirmed.