Jesus Martinez Mendoza v. State
443 S.W.3d 360
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Around 11:00 p.m. two victims were robbed at gunpoint in a Wal‑Mart parking lot by a group of five Hispanic men; appellant Mendoza acted as a lookout.
- Police stopped a truck matching the victims’ description ~1.5 miles away and detained five males.
- Officers conducted an on‑the‑scene “show‑up”: each suspect was presented one at a time while the two complainants, transported separately, viewed them.
- Each complainant identified Mendoza among the suspects; one complainant identified three suspects, the other identified four.
- Mendoza and a codefendant were tried together; Mendoza was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to eight years.
- Mendoza moved to suppress the pretrial identifications as impermissibly suggestive and unreliable; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial show‑up was impermissibly suggestive and violated due process | Show‑up procedure was inherently suggestive and likely to produce misidentification | Show‑up was reasonable given time sensitivity, safeguards, and fresh memory of witnesses | Court held the show‑up was not impermissibly suggestive and affirmed denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to trial court’s historical findings in suppression review)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (two‑step test for suggestive pretrial identifications: impermissive suggestiveness and likelihood of misidentification)
- Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (show‑ups may be so suggestive as to deny due process)
- Garza v. State, 633 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (recognizing benefits of prompt show‑ups and factors for totality review)
- Mason v. State, 416 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (failure to object to in‑court ID waives appeal of that in‑court identification)