Jose Alfaro v. State
05-14-01245-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- Jose Alfaro was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment; the jury also assessed a $10,000 fine that was orally pronounced at sentencing.
- At punishment, Dallas PD Officer Edward Tena (Gang Unit) testified about Alfaro’s membership in the North Side Locos and Alfaro’s reputation for intimidating others in his neighborhood.
- Alfaro objected that Tena’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay and improperly offered unproven allegations of specific criminal acts.
- The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the testimony; Alfaro appealed arguing abuse of discretion in admitting the hearsay.
- The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the testimony was improper hearsay beyond permissible reputation evidence and (2) harmlessness; it also addressed a State cross-issue to correct the judgment to include the $10,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Officer Tena’s testimony at punishment | Tena’s statements were hearsay that amounted to unproven specific-act allegations and exceeded reputation evidence | Testimony was permissible reputation/gang-membership evidence under art. 37.07 §3(a); Tena spoke to community reputation heard from others | Court held testimony was reputation evidence within permissible scope; no abuse of discretion in admitting it |
| Harmlessness of any erroneous admission | Erroneous admission influenced jury and affected substantial rights | Any error was nonconstitutional and, on the whole record, had no substantial or injurious effect | Court held that even if error, it was harmless given other punishment evidence (gang activity, prior juvenile offenses, victim impact) |
| Correction of judgment to reflect fine | N/A (State raised cross-issue) | N/A | Court modified the judgment to include the $10,000 fine as orally pronounced and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (relevance of gang membership to character evidence)
- Beecham v. State, 580 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (reputation testimony must be based on what witness heard from others)
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (erroneous admission/exclusion of evidence is nonconstitutional error)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (appellate review of nonconstitutional error under Rule 44.2(b))
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (substantial-rights harmlessness standard)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate power to correct clerical errors in judgment)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (correction of judgments to reflect trial record)
- Ho v. State, 171 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (admission of character/gang evidence at punishment)