Jesse Salazar AKA Jessie Salazar v. State
13-15-00583-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Jesse Salazar was charged with choking his then-girlfriend, Maria Carrejo, and convicted after a bench trial of a second-degree family-violence assault with habitual-offender enhancement; punishment assessed at 50 years.
- The State offered recorded jail phone calls between Salazar and Carrejo; the court initially admitted the calls over Salazar’s Confrontation Clause objection under a claimed forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theory.
- Later the same day, defense counsel produced Carrejo, who recanted earlier statements and testified that the alleged assault never occurred and that prior statements were lies made while intoxicated or angry.
- Investigating officers testified and introduced photographs showing injuries they attributed to choking; officers observed Carrejo upset, crying, and with visible marks.
- The trial court heard the recordings (one containing a statement the court deemed threatening), had evidence of Salazar’s prior family-violence conviction, and found Carrejo’s recantation not credible.
- On appeal Salazar raised (1) a Morton Act/Brady-style due process claim for alleged late disclosure of the recordings and (2) a claim that the trial judge was biased because the judge disbelieved the recantation and imposed a harsh sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Salazar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Morton Act / Due Process (failure to produce recordings) | State withheld jail-call recordings despite timely request, violating Morton Act and due process | Defense counsel had previously heard the recordings; issue not preserved for appeal | Waived; claim overruled |
| 2. Judicial bias / impartial tribunal | Trial court’s disbelief of recantation and a 50-year sentence show judicial partiality | Court’s credibility determinations and sentence were within reason and statutory range; no clear bias shown | No showing of bias; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (discusses forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to Confrontation Clause)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Ex Parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Brady/Morton Act disclosure principles)
- Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption of judicial impartiality; burden to show bias)
- Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sentences within statutory limits generally not excessive)