Ojeda, Christian Andres
PD-1001-17
| Tex. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Christian Andres Ojeda was tried for murder; jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and assessed life imprisonment after finding an enhancement true.
- The State introduced a videotaped police interview of Ojeda (State’s Exhibit 86) that had been redacted and then manually muted at trial; defense objected generally to the redactions and to manual muting as risking human error.
- Defense argued the redacted interview still contained prejudicial extraneous-offense and gang-related material and that the trial court should have excluded specific portions; the court overruled and granted a running objection.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding defense failed to preserve complaint about specific portions of the tape and that any error was harmless; it also addressed hearsay objections to Kimberly Streetman’s testimony and a sentencing enhancement technicality.
- Ojeda petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the appellate court misapplied preservation rules (Resendez, Zillender) and the harmless-error standard (Whitaker), and that the State’s case relied heavily on the interview for direct evidence of stabbing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ojeda) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of redacted/video interview — preservation | Objection preserved because trial court and counsel understood the complaint; running objection and pretrial motions put court on notice | Appellant failed to make a timely, specific objection pointing to particular segments; general objections insufficient | Court of Appeals: Not preserved — defendant did not identify specific portions, so claim waived |
| Admission of redacted/video interview — prejudice/harmlessness | Interview was central and provided the only direct evidence of stabbing; admission affected substantial rights | Even if error preserved, admission was harmless given other evidence; conviction would have occurred without the tape | Court of Appeals: Harmless — the error (if any) did not affect substantial rights; conviction stands |
| Exclusion/admission of alleged hearsay in Kimberly Streetman’s testimony | Certain statements she heard were admissible under hearsay exceptions and exclusion harmed appellant | Trial preserved no offer of proof for excluded hearsay; rulings either within discretion or harmless | Court of Appeals: No reversible error; issues not preserved or harmless; claims overruled |
| State’s cross-point — enhancement paragraph in judgment | (State) Judgment inaccurately reflected two enhancement findings; record shows one enhancement pleaded and found | (Ojeda) Pleaded true to enhancement(s) in punishment phase; record ambiguous | Court of Appeals: Reform judgment to reflect plea and jury finding as to a single enhancement count; affirm as reformed |
Key Cases Cited
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (specificity requirement for preserving objections to evidence)
- Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (context can preserve an objection when the trial judge and opposing counsel understand the complaint)
- Whitaker v. State, 286 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (harmless-error framework for assessing whether admission of contested audio would have changed outcome)