Jadin Nunez v. the State of Texas, 13-22-00024-CR

Appellant Jadin Nunez was indicted for capital murder of a child under 10 and tried in Bell County, Texas; jury convicted and he received automatic life without parole.
Two pretrial hearings are at issue: Oct. 15, 2021 (remote/video participation during COVID emergency order) and Oct. 18, 2021 (defendant absent before jury selection).
On Oct. 15 the court discussed amending the indictment, redactions to the State’s video of Nunez’s statement, and extraneous-offense testimony; defense counsel participated via videoconference and advocated for redactions.
On Oct. 18 the court heard the State’s motion in limine; defense counsel attended, objected only to limited items (notably item 5 restricting defendant background statements during jury selection), and the court resolved the items (granting some, denying others).
Trial evidence included Nunez’s statements admitting he punched and strangled the victim; jury convicted on Oct. 20, 2021; motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.

Issue	Nunez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Nunez’s remote presence on Oct. 15 denied his right to be present/meaningfully participate	Remote video appearance prevented private, real-time communication with counsel and thus violated Article 28.01 and Due Process	Remote participation was authorized by Texas Supreme Court COVID emergency order; counsel was present and advocated for Nunez, and no prejudice shown	No reversible error — even if absence, presence would not have furthered defense; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether Nunez’s absence on Oct. 18 (in-person) denied his right to be present/meaningfully participate	Physical absence at motion-in-limine hearing (before voir dire) deprived him of ability to contest limits on voir dire (item 5) and preserve objection to extraneous-offense rulings	Counsel was present, raised objections to key items, the motion in limine rulings were preliminary, and Nunez offers no personal information that would have aided defense	Error acknowledged but not reversible — defendant’s presence would not have materially aided defense; any error harmless and did not affect substantial rights

United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (per curiam) (presence required under Sixth Amendment/Due Process in certain stages)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (Due Process limits on when presence is required)
Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (presence required only when it would further defense; harmless-absence analysis)
King v. State, 666 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (no due process violation obviates harm analysis)
Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (motion in limine is preliminary and normally preserves nothing for appeal)
Norman v. State, 523 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (purpose and non-final nature of motion in limine)
Hughes v. State, 651 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022) (video appearance inadequate where defendant could not privately communicate with counsel)