Hermilo Moralez v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12037
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In Nov. 2010 appellant Hermilo Moralez was arrested after leading police to the victim’s body and charged with murder; trial resulted in a life sentence.
- Appellant was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial in Oct. 2011, committed for treatment, and later returned to the committing court after the head of the facility reported restoration of competency.
- Appellant requested a jury hearing on competency; the jury found him competent on Nov. 14, 2012, and the trial court signed an Order Finding Competency on Nov. 15, 2012.
- At trial appellant admitted killing the victim but claimed self-defense; the jury rejected self-defense, convicted him of murder, and assessed life imprisonment.
- Appellant raised seven appellate issues: (1) burden and adequacy of judicial determination of restored competency, (2) sufficiency of evidence of competency, (3) denial of motion to suppress, (4) failure to disprove self-defense, (5) admission of photos/DVD, (6) admission of extraneous-offense evidence, and (7) exclusion of the prior Agreed Judgment of Incompetency at punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Moralez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency judicial determination & burden | Trial court didn’t make a judicial restoration of competency and State should have to prove competency beyond a reasonable doubt after prior adjudication | Trial court signed competency order before resuming proceedings; facility head opined restoration so statute presumes competency and shifts burden to Moralez to prove continuing incompetency by preponderance | Overruled — court found judicial determination (Nov. 15 order) and applied art. 46B.113(d) presumption; Moralez bore preponderance burden |
| Sufficiency of competency evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove competence; jury charge misstated burden | Multiple experts and jail staff testified appellant was competent; burden was correctly placed on Moralez given facility head’s opinion | Overruled — expert and lay testimony supported jury verdict of competence |
| Motion to suppress statements/evidence | Statements and derivative evidence were unlawfully admitted | Any error was harmless because Moralez testified at guilt-innocence and was not compelled to do so to rebut suppressed evidence | Overruled — admission (if error) harmless; appellant did not show his testimony was compelled |
| Self-defense | Appellant testified he was choked and reasonably feared death, so guilty verdict inconsistent | State produced evidence of severe, multiple fatal injuries, post-offense concealment, and prior threats; jury free to disbelieve self-defense claim | Overruled — viewing evidence favorably to verdict, rational jury could reject self-defense and find required intent |
| Photographs/DVD admission (Rule 403) | Photographs/DVD were overly prejudicial and gruesome | Photos and DVD were relevant to injuries/crime scene; not more gruesome than scene; limited in number and probative value outweighed prejudice | Overruled — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting exhibits |
| Extraneous-offense testimony (404(b)/403) | Testimony about threats/preparation was unduly prejudicial | Testimony was relevant to intent, plan, and rebutting self-defense; probative value outweighed prejudice | Overruled — trial court acted within discretion admitting testimony |
| Exclusion of prior Agreed Judgment at punishment | The October 2011 Agreed Judgment of Incompetency was mitigating and should have been admitted | The jury already heard extensive psychiatric testimony and knew of prior incompetency; exclusion was harmless | Overruled — exclusion harmless because jury was informed of incompetency through testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. State, 172 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2005) (trial court must make judicial determination of restored competency before resuming proceedings)
- Manning v. State, 730 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (prior adjudication of incompetency historically shifted burden to State to prove competency beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Schaffer v. State, 583 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (notice that superintendent’s notification is not itself a judicial determination; court must determine competency)
- Byrd v. State, 719 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. App. 1986) (appellate abatement where no judicial determination of competency on record)
- Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing competency determinations)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (defendant bears initial burden to produce some evidence of self-defense; State must then disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (improperly admitted evidence is harmless when same facts are shown by other unchallenged evidence unless defendant was compelled to testify)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Rule 403 balancing framework and presumption favoring probative value)
- Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (photographs admissible if not more gruesome than the crime scene)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (photographs depicting injuries are relevant and probative)
- Meadoux v. State, 307 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App. 2009) (post-offense concealment and related conduct can support intent inference)