Joe Derek Carr v. State
03-14-00235-CR
Tex. App.May 20, 2015Background
- Victim Veronica Navarro was found bound, weighted with paint cans and cinder blocks, and wrapped in a Coleman tent at Pace Bend Park; cause of death ruled homicide by asphyxia.
- Appellant Joe Derek Carr was Navarro’s boyfriend; their relationship had been on-and-off and described as strained; Navarro had expressed fear and plans to leave him.
- Phone records place Navarro near Highway 71 when she last answered her phone and show Carr’s phone inactive for a two-hour window the night she likely died; Carr’s phone later showed movement consistent with travel to the dump site.
- Physical links: the victim was wrapped in a Coleman tent, and investigators found a Coleman tent bag (same product number) at Carr’s home; paint from cans anchoring the body matched paint in Carr’s home; complex rope knots consistent with Carr’s rope skills were used.
- Carr fled toward international borders after discovery of the body; while detained he made a recorded jail call to his mother in which she directly asked whether he killed Navarro and he responded evasively.
- Trial: jury convicted Carr of murder and tampering with a human corpse; Carr was sentenced to 60 years (murder) and 20 years (tampering); he appealed raising evidentiary and sufficiency issues and challenged denial of a new-trial motion based on post-trial surveillance video.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of witnesses’ testimony about Navarro’s statements describing relationship / fear | Statements were admissible under Tex. R. Evid. 803(3) (declarant’s state of mind) and art. 38.36; alternatively forfeiture by wrongdoing makes objections unavailing; any error harmless given cumulative evidence | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and violated Rules 403/404/802 | Court sustained admission (State defends admission); held statements were within state-of-mind exception and/or forfeiture by wrongdoing; any error harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder and tampering convictions | Cumulative circumstantial evidence (motive, opportunity, phone data, physical links between Carr and concealment materials, flight, recorded statements) supports convictions | Evidence insufficient to tie Carr to tent/paint/rope and to prove he caused Navarro’s death | State: evidence sufficient; convictions supported by circumstantial proof and reasonable inferences (court affirms) |
| Exclusion of police-report-based impeachment of Chris Kashimba (witness) | Specific-instance reports lacked convictions and did not show physical violence; inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 608(b); court allowed questions about relationship instead | Reports were admissible to impeach constructive misrepresentations and rebut Kashimba’s testimony that he and Navarro "never fought" | Court upheld exclusion as within trial court discretion; if erroneous, exclusion harmless because record already showed disputes between them |
| Authentication and admission of recorded jail phone call (State’s Exhibit 318) | Call was properly authenticated by voice ID under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(5); Rule 901(b) examples not exhaustive; admission proper and harmless if error | Authentication inadequate because number/line evidence not produced; admission invaded Fifth Amendment rights (self-incrimination) | Court upheld admission: voice identification sufficient under Rule 901; Fifth Amendment not implicated because the call was a voluntary out-of-court statement to a private party; any error harmless |
| Self-incrimination / prosecutor comment claim re the jail call | Call was voluntary out-of-court statement to mother; not equivalent to prosecutor commenting on silence at trial | Admission invaded right to remain silent because mother’s question requested information only appellant could supply | Court rejected Fifth Amendment claim and comparison to impermissible trial comments; call admissible as voluntary statement |
| Denial of motion for new trial based on post-trial Walmart surveillance showing Carr and Navarro together | Newly discovered video only confirms they were together on June 26 and is cumulative of trial evidence; would not probably produce a different result | Video undermines State’s theory that Navarro was fearful and planning to leave Carr; warrants new trial | Court denied new-trial relief: video cumulative and consistent with trial evidence; appellant failed to show it would likely change verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Gonzalez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applied in Confrontation Clause context)
- Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (victim’s statements of fear and intent admissible under state-of-mind hearsay exception)
- Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Fain v. State, 986 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (statements of victim’s intent/admissions admissible under Rule 803(3))
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence and inferences for intent and guilt)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (harmless-error inquiry for erroneously admitted evidence)