Manuel Richard Pena v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5932
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In 1982, Sherri Strong was found dead in the garage of Manuel Pena’s home with a rope around her neck; paramedics observed lividity and other signs inconsistent with a hanging.
- Pena told officers he found Strong hanging and cut her down; detectives found inconsistencies in his account and the scene (bed condition, rope/pulley, bodily waste, and other physical signs).
- Autopsy by Dr. Aurelio Espinola concluded cause of death was ligature strangulation (homicide), noting petechial hemorrhages, neck injuries, multiple pre-mortem injuries, and lividity inconsistent with hanging.
- The case remained unsolved until a 2011 cold-case review by Sgt. Clegg, who re-interviewed witnesses, found more inconsistencies in Pena’s stories, and reviewed original reports; a grand jury indicted Pena for murder.
- At trial the jury convicted Pena of murder and sentenced him to life; Pena appealed, arguing (1) legal insufficiency of evidence, (2) Sixth Amendment public-trial violation from a drape closure, and (3) improper admission of Sergeant Clegg’s testimony for lack of personal knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Pena's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence to convict of murder | Evidence was circumstantial and lacked direct proof (no DNA/fingerprints); Strong may have committed suicide; no proof Pena killed her | Forensic and circumstantial evidence (autopsy findings, pre-death injuries, inconsistent statements, motive, Pena alone in house) sufficed for a rational juror to convict | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient under Jackson standard and Hooper precedent |
| Sixth Amendment right to a public trial (drape closed during autopsy photos) | Closure of courtroom windows/drifted drape prevented public/media access, violating public-trial right | No contemporaneous objection below (waiver); record does not establish actual courtroom closure or exclusion; closure likely only prevented external photography | Affirmed — claim waived for failure to object; no demonstrated closure or constitutional violation |
| Admissibility of Sgt. Clegg’s testimony about inconsistencies | Clegg lacked personal knowledge of what Pena told original officers in 1982; testimony violated Tex. R. Evid. 602 | Clegg personally interviewed Pena in 2011 and interviewed/reviewed statements of original officers in 2011; he testified about what others said Pena told them (not primary out-of-court assertion) | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Clegg had sufficient personal knowledge to testify |
| Preservation and standard of review for claimed errors | (Combined with above) | (Combined with above) | Appellate review applied Jackson/Hooper for sufficiency and abuse-of-discretion for evidentiary rulings; preservation rules bar Sixth Amendment review without objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence and inference-stacking guidance)
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appellate standard for sufficiency review)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (analyzing public-trial closure and preservation)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (public access satisfied by ability to attend and report)
- Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings; defer to trial court within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (same: uphold evidentiary rulings if correct under any applicable theory)