Herrera v. State
526 S.W.3d 800
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- 17-year-old Jessica and 18-year-old Eddie Herrera attended prom, went to a hotel, had consensual sex, and Jessica was found dead the next morning. Herrera and his mother had procured alcohol and Hydrocodone for the night.
- Emergency services were called ~2 hours after Herrera found Jessica; no signs of a struggle were observed in the room.
- Autopsy revealed extensive neck injuries: multiple deep hemorrhages in front and back neck muscles, petechiae, anal trauma, and contusions; medical examiner testified injuries required directed, forceful squeezing multiple times and would likely cause loss of consciousness.
- Toxicology showed high alcohol and hydrocodone; examiner testified petechiae are not typical of sedative overdose and supported neck-compression injury as cause of asphyxia/brain blood-flow reduction.
- Herrera made inconsistent statements to police: initially omitted choking, later admitted a brief, mild one-handed squeeze during consensual sex, then admitted squeezing after saying she placed his hands on her neck; he demonstrated mild pressure in interview contradicting autopsy findings.
- Herrera was indicted, tried, convicted of first-degree aggravated assault (deadly weapon: hands; dating-relationship elevation) and sentenced to 25 years; he appealed raising charge error and sufficiency challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Herrera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury charge mens rea (dual definitions of "knowingly") | Charge correctly required result-oriented knowledge in application paragraph; harmless even if conduct-definition included | Inclusion of conduct-oriented definition allowed conviction without proof he knew serious bodily injury would result | No egregious harm; charge as a whole and application required finding he "knowingly caused serious bodily injury" — affirmed |
| Sufficiency: act of "choking" | Evidence (Herrera's admissions, demonstration, and autopsy) supports choking/neck compression causing injury | Medical testimony showed blood-flow restriction (not airway) so term "choking" insufficiently proven | Sufficient evidence that Herrera choked/squeezed neck causing bodily injury — affirmed |
| Sufficiency: mens rea (intent/knowledge of serious injury) | Circumstantial evidence (inconsistent statements, severity of injuries, alone in room) supports inference he knew conduct was reasonably certain to cause serious injury | Claimed consensual request and lack of evidence he intended harm or appreciated the danger | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer requisite culpable mental state — affirmed |
| Sufficiency: dating relationship (elevation to first-degree) | Relationship evidence (dating for ~3 weeks, sex, ring, talked about future, called girlfriend) meets statute factors | Three-week duration insufficient to establish "continuing romantic relationship" under statute | Jury reasonably could find a dating relationship — sufficiency satisfied; elevation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury-charge error)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
- Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (definitions in jury charge examined in context)
- Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (considering defendant’s untruthful statements as evidence of guilt)
- Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discussed in relation to dating-relationship duration)