Joshua Keith Rigo v. State
07-14-00088-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 29, 2015Background
- Defendant Joshua Keith Rigo was convicted of murder; sentence: 90 years imprisonment and $10,000 fine. Appeal challenges evidentiary rulings only.
- Victim Kristi Slatten was found strangled and with blunt-force injuries on Jan 1, 2013; evidence showed a relationship between Rigo and Slatten.
- Photo transmitted from Slatten’s Blackberry to Rigo’s phone showed Rigo in Slatten’s home early Jan 1; Rigo was later found driving Slatten’s truck with her purse, cellphone, and underwear inside.
- Physical evidence: fingerprints on an MD 20/20 bottle allegedly matched Rigo via AFIS; blood on Rigo’s sock matched Slatten; Rigo had delivered guns and knives from Slatten’s home to his father earlier that morning.
- At trial deputy Zach Kidd testified about scanning prints into AFIS and identifying a match; Rigo objected during/after Kidd’s testimony, asserting Confrontation Clause and lack of expert qualification errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of deputy Kidd’s AFIS fingerprint identification violated the Confrontation Clause | Rigo: testimony was testimonial and admitted without proper confrontation; thus constitutional error | State: objections were untimely (not preserved); even if preserved, admission was harmless given the other strong evidence | Objections were not timely preserved; alternatively, any error was harmless; issue overruled |
| Qualification of deputy Kidd to give an expert opinion on AFIS results | Rigo: Kidd was not shown qualified as an expert and thus his identification should be excluded | State: same preservation argument; and fingerprint evidence was cumulative/minor amid overwhelming evidence of guilt | Objection untimely and, even if error, admission was harmless; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (timeliness and specificity required to preserve appellate complaint)
- Polk v. State, 729 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (objection ordinarily must precede the objectionable testimony)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (late objections may be excused if witness answers before counsel can object or other acceptable reasons)
- Girndt v. State, 623 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (lateness excused where witness answers before objection possible)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (erroneous admission of evidence is nonconstitutional error reviewed under Rule 44.2(b))
- Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Confrontation Clause error is constitutional and reviewed under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt harmless standard)