Jacob O'Brien v. State, 08-14-00222-CR

Background

Jacob O’Brien and three companions hunted and brought back two aoudad sheep heads; photos were posted on Facebook. They hunted on land owned by Nathan Pickett without his permission; O’Brien claimed he believed the land belonged to a companion’s father.
Pickett’s 300-acre property was fenced, gated, and posted with multiple “no trespassing” signs (some bearing Pickett’s name); a game camera was installed and captured two date-stamped photos of four men on July 6, 2013.
Pickett found evidence of unauthorized entry and use of the cabin (damaged gate lock, moved rock barriers, knocked-down carport gate, cut awning, spent shell casings, trash); he gave the camera images to a game warden who helped identify the men.
At trial Christopher O’Brien and Jacob admitted being on the property; Christopher admitted hunting the aoudad and testified that he had been told the property belonged to Seth Winkler’s father.
Jacob was convicted by a jury of criminal trespass (sentence: 60 days’ jail and $500 fine); he appealed, challenging (1) admissibility/authentication and Confrontation Clause implications of the game-camera photos, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (O’Brien)	Held
Admissibility/authentication of game-camera photos	Photos were from Pickett’s camera and accurately depicted defendants on Pickett’s property; admissible.	Warden who offered photos lacked personal knowledge of photo creation, chain of custody, or that images weren’t altered; photos not properly authenticated.	Admission was not reversible error: later testimony and defendants’ own admissions authenticated the photos and cured any earlier defect.
Confrontation Clause re: photos	Photos are not testimonial statements; witnesses who supplied/identified them (Pickett, Warden) testified and were cross-examined.	Photos were testimonial because Warden’s knowledge came from Pickett; admission violated Sixth Amendment.	Issue waived by failure to raise Confrontation objection at trial; in any event photographs are not testimonial.
Sufficiency of evidence for criminal trespass (intent/notice)	Circumstantial and direct evidence (photos, admissions, damaged gate/removed barriers, signs/fencing, conduct like cutting awning, posting FB photos) supported that defendants knowingly and intentionally entered without consent and with notice.	O’Brien argued he lacked intent/knowledge because he honestly believed the land belonged to Seth’s father; reasonable alternative hypothesis.	Evidence sufficient: jury could reject mistake claim and infer knowledge/intent and notice from physical barriers, signs, damage to gate and other conduct.

Key Cases Cited

Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication threshold & trial court gate-keeping standard)
Pena v. State, 467 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2015) (witness need not be photographer to authenticate photo)
Delacerda v. State, 425 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (photograph must be shown to accurately represent subject)
Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (authentication principles for photographs)
James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2003) (error in premature admission may be cured by later evidence)
Romo v. State, 700 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (conviction not reversed for evidence admitted early that later becomes admissible)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless declarant unavailable and defendant had opportunity to cross-examine)
Herrera v. State, 367 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (photographs are not testimonial statements)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson sufficiency review)
Fernandez v. State, 479 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (sufficiency standard discussion)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (circumstantial evidence can establish guilt)