Efrain Lopez v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10865

In 2005 four men robbed Guadalupe Sepulveda at 6401 Loma Vista Street; Sepulveda was wounded and Daniel Zamora was killed by gunfire. Appellant Efrain Lopez was later tried and convicted of capital murder related to that incident.
Lopez was arrested in December 2005 on unrelated charges and was indicted for the Loma Vista capital murder on May 11, 2011; he remained incarcerated on other matters before the Loma Vista indictment.
Defense counsel signed multiple agreed resets in the Loma Vista matter between 2011 and 2014; the case was ultimately tried in September 2014 and the jury assessed life imprisonment.
Lopez moved to dismiss for violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing where the State explained delays (including parallel proceedings and plea negotiations in a related Bunker Hill capital case).
Lopez also objected to admission of a 2005 photograph showing him with two shotguns (State’s Exhibit 30), arguing undue prejudice and cumulative/limited probative value; the trial court admitted the cropped photograph and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lopez’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right was violated by the delay from alleged 2005 events to 2014 trial	Lopez: right attached at arrest in 2005 (or earlier) and the long incarceration (8+ years) was presumptively prejudicial; delays were not his fault	State: speedy-trial clock began at May 11, 2011 indictment; numerous agreed resets exclude much time; delays attributable to case complexity and related plea negotiations	Court: Lopez became an accused at the 2011 indictment; excluded agreed resets; remaining delay was not presumptively prejudicial given case complexity; no speedy-trial violation.
Whether admission of a 2005 photo of Lopez holding two shotguns was unfairly prejudicial under Tex. R. Evid. 403	Lopez: photograph was needlessly cumulative, added little probative value, and unduly suggested gang affiliation (bandana, alleged tattoo, hand sign)	State: photograph clarified witness testimony, corroborated shotgun access matching victim’s description, and was cropped to minimize prejudicial elements	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; photo clarified testimony and had probative value that outweighed prejudice.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay must be presumptively prejudicial to trigger Barker analysis)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right attaches only when one becomes an accused)
Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (arrest or charge generally starts speedy-trial right; Barker factors application)
Celestine v. State, 356 S.W.3d 502 (time covered by agreed resets excluded from speedy-trial computation)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Rule 403 balancing factors articulated)
Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186 (photographs admissible to corroborate or clarify testimony)
Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636 (photograph admissibility rests within trial court discretion)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (balance favors admission of relevant evidence)