Lajuan Kendell Ward v. State, 14-15-00473-CR

Background

Appellant Lajuan Kendell Ward was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment; he appealed raising seven issues challenging the jury charge and multiple evidentiary rulings.
Facts: Ward and Reginald Sweed committed a store robbery; Sweed displayed a gun and Ward subdued customers while speaking on his cell phone; witnesses followed/identified a Camry and turned over a gun and gloves found nearby.
Investigation: Detective Reese obtained Sweed’s and then Ward’s phone records (via warrants), identified call/tower data linking Ward’s phone to the vicinity of the robbery, and conducted a non-custodial phone interview in which Ward confessed.
Evidence at trial included Ward’s recorded statement, historic cell-tower call-detail records analyzed by Officer Powell, and details of an earlier juvenile kidnapping conviction offered during punishment.
On appeal the court reviewed: (1) whether the jury charge improperly instructed on an unindicted conspiracy; (2) preservation of a requested lesser included instruction; (3) admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence at punishment; (4) voluntariness of Ward’s statement; (5) qualification/reliability of the cell-location expert; and (6–7) challenges to the search-warrant affidavit and whether the warrant/affidavit were presented to the trial court.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Jury charge included unindicted conspiracy offense	Charge instructed on conspiracy language and thus allowed conviction on an offense not alleged in indictment	Charge merely explained law of parties (including §7.02(b) anticipated-result language) as a permissible means to convict of charged aggravated robbery	No error — instruction was law of parties allowed without being pleaded; charge properly included conspiracy language as part of parties doctrine
Trial court refused lesser-included instruction (conspiracy to commit robbery/assault)	Asked for lesser-included of assault/conspiracy and trial court denied; on appeal argues omission was error	Defense’s trial request did not match appellate argument; failure to preserve specific request; judge not required to sua sponte give lesser	Not preserved — appellant’s appellate complaint did not comport with trial request; denial not reviewable on appeal
Admission of extraneous-offense details at punishment (juvenile kidnapping)	State went beyond notice and introduced factual details without required Article 37.07(g) notice	State had given notice of prior conviction and produced juvenile records; when prior resulted in conviction only notice of conviction is required and underlying facts are admissible at punishment	No abuse of discretion — notice was sufficient and facts underlying a prior conviction are admissible at punishment
Suppression of recorded statement — promise of leniency induced confession	Investigator’s statements (e.g., "one last chance... next time you see me may be under different circumstances... It ain't worth not being able to see your mother for years") were effectively promises of leniency that overbore will	Statements were exhortations/predictions or general offers to help, not positive promises of leniency; voluntariness is fact question for trial court	No abuse of discretion — statements were not positive promises inducing an involuntary confession; trial court’s finding of voluntariness affirmed
Exclusion of cell-location expert / reliability of testimony	Officer Powell lacked familiarity with proprietary software and certain local variables, so he was unqualified and his location opinion unreliable	Powell had formal training and extensive experience mapping historic CDR tower IDs and tower locations; task was straightforward and based on records showing which tower was used	No abuse of discretion — Powell was qualified and his methodology (historic CDRs + tower list) gave a reliable basis for a general location opinion
Suppression of phone records — affidavit insufficient to show probable cause	Reese’s affidavit was conclusory, lacked specificity about timing/which suspect used phone, and did not show probable cause to obtain target phone records	Affidavit described witness observations, license-plate leads, link between Sweed’s records and another number, and allowed reasonable inference that the other number’s records would yield evidence	No error — viewed realistically and deferentially the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause to issue the warrant
Trial court did not receive warrant/affidavit for review at suppression hearing	State relied on warrant but did not present it to court so court lacked opportunity to inspect document	Reporter’s notes and record reflect the warrant and affidavit were before the court and the witness identified them at the hearing	No error — record shows the court had opportunity to review the warrant and affidavit

Key Cases Cited

Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
Montoya v. State, 810 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (parties instruction with conspiracy language does not add unindicted offense)
Marable v. State, 85 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (indictment need not allege law of parties)
Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (unanimity not required as to principal vs. party theories)
Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court not required to give lesser-included instructions sua sponte)
Pennington v. State, 697 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (specificity required to preserve lesser-included charge requests)
Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Kelly reliability factors for scientific expert testimony)
Thompson v. State, 425 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (police testimony mapping historic CDR/tower data can be admissible)
Robinson v. State, 368 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (police expert with comparable training admissible to opine on general phone location)