Genaro Tamayo v. State
14-15-00141-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Appellant Genaro Tamayo was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.
- During a jail interrogation by Officer Wyatt and Deputy McCool, Tamayo gave an unrecorded oral statement, then signed a written statement, and later gave a recorded oral statement. The written and recorded statements were admitted at trial.
- Tamayo moved to suppress his statements claiming they were involuntary because he was promised a benefit (bond/probation) and that officers used an improper two-step (question-first, warn-later) Miranda tactic.
- During punishment, two witnesses (gas-station owner and cashier) made pre-trial photographic identifications of Tamayo; Tamayo challenged the lineups as impermissibly suggestive.
- Tamayo also challenged several trial-court evidentiary rulings at punishment: (1) exclusion of Facebook photos of victims (to rebut State’s exhibits), and (2) admission of jail infractions, Facebook photos, and tattoo photos as more prejudicial than probative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tamayo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress — promises induced confession | No promise of benefit; officers only urged honesty; statements voluntary | Officers promised help (bond/probation) so confession was involuntary | Denied — trial court credited officers; no clear, positive promise proven |
| Motion to suppress — two-step Miranda tactic | Officers Mirandized before questioning and statements; no two-step | Officers questioned and obtained initial unwarned confession, then warned and obtained repeat confession | Not preserved for appeal (no timely objection below); issue overruled |
| Pre-trial photographic identifications | Lineups not impermissibly suggestive; identifications reliable | Lineups impermissibly suggested the suspect was included, risking misidentification | Admissible — any disclosure that a suspect might be in the array did not render procedure impermissibly suggestive |
| Jury sequestration | No timely motion to sequester was made; court may allow separation | Failure to sequester after court dismissed jury overnight deprived Tamayo | Not preserved — Tamayo did not timely request sequestration; issue overruled |
| Exclusion of Facebook evidence of victims (punishment) | Evidence irrelevant/collateral and would impermissibly invite comparing victims’ worth; trial court has discretion to exclude | State opened the door by introducing appellant’s Facebook photos; excluded exhibits were necessary to correct false impression | Affirmed — exclusion within trial court’s discretion (collateral issue, Rule 403) |
| Admission of jail records, Facebook photos, tattoos at punishment | Evidence relevant to sentencing and largely admitted through unobjected testimony | Admission of exhibits was more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403 | Harmless / affirmed — substantially the same evidence was admitted without objection, so any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. State, 116 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (test for involuntary statement induced by promise)
- Coleman v. State, 440 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (general, non-specific promises of leniency do not render statements involuntary)
- Vasquez v. State, 483 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (two-step/question-first-warn-later Miranda framework)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (Supreme Court on question-first Miranda technique)
- Aviles-Barroso v. State, 477 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (two-step identification admissibility analysis)
- Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (in-court identification admissible absent impermissibly suggestive pretrial procedures)
- Hayden v. State, 296 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (victim-character evidence at punishment: relevance and Rule 403 limits)
- Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (opening the door and limits on extrinsic impeachment of collateral issues)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (erroneous admission harmless where substantially similar evidence admitted without objection)