Javara Price v. State
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9152
Tex. App.2016Background
- Victim Joel Fraustro was robbed at gunpoint outside his apartment; two men took his keys and threatened him with a shotgun. He returned to the apartment distraught and his girlfriend called police.
- Officers arrived about 6–10 minutes after the call; Officer Cabrera described Fraustro as visibly upset and related Fraustro’s out-of-court account of the robbery and a description of the suspects over defense objection.
- Officers later spotted and stopped the stolen vehicle a short distance away; it crashed during an attempted flight. A shotgun (missing its butt) and unfired slug shells were recovered from the vehicle.
- At the crash scene, roughly 30–45 minutes after the robbery, officers conducted an on-the-scene “show-up.” Fraustro positively identified appellant as the shooter and identified the recovered shotgun as the weapon used.
- At trial Fraustro testified and again identified appellant; the jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed 19 years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated robbery conviction | State: Fraustro’s in-court and on-scene IDs, proximity in time/place, stolen vehicle, recovered shotgun, and Fraustro’s testimony suffice | Price: Conviction rests solely on an unreliable on-the-scene ID; inconsistencies in descriptions undermine reliability | Evidence sufficient: a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of Officer Cabrera’s recounting of Fraustro’s statements at apartment | State: Statements were excited utterances admissible under Rule 803(2) | Price: Statements were hearsay and inadmissible | Admissible as excited utterance; trial court didn’t abuse discretion |
| Admissibility of Officer Cabrera’s testimony recounting Fraustro’s show-up ID at crash scene | State: Identification statements are non‑hearsay under Rule 801(e)(1)(C) when declarant testifies and is cross‑examined | Price: Officer’s testimony improperly bolstered complainant’s identification (relying on pre‑Rule precedents) | Admissible as non‑hearsay identification under Rule 801(e)(1)(C); trial court didn’t err |
| Whether suggestiveness of on‑scene show‑up required exclusion or suppression | State: show‑up is often necessary and reliable when fresh; no motion to suppress was filed | Price: on‑scene identification procedures are suggestive and unreliable | Court did not reach full Neil reliability analysis for suppression; considered the ID as part of sufficiency review and upheld conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identifications)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (consideration of all record evidence in sufficiency review)
- McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (elements for excited utterance analysis)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard of review for admission of evidence and excited utterance discussion)