Orlando Salinas v. State
426 S.W.3d 318
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Salinas was convicted of injury to an elderly person and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
- The offense involved an altercation at the complainant’s home where Salinas allegedly bit and struck the elderly father; witnesses described a bite-like wound and a subsequent 9-1-1 call.
- Houston police officers testified that the complainant initially hesitated to speak but later described biting and hitting by Salinas.
- The State presented Hutchinson, a family-violence expert, who opined that domestic-violence victims may recant or minimize allegations.
- The trial court admitted the officers’ hearsay statements about the complainant’s account as excited utterances, while Salinas later testified inconsistently.
- The trial court imposed a consolidated court cost of $133 under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102(a)(1), which Salinas challenged as unconstitutional; the reviewing court affirmed the judgment on these issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert testimony qualification and relevance | Hutchinson lacked proper qualifications and relevance. | Hutchinson was qualified and her testimony was relevant to recantation tendencies. | Hutchinson qualified; testimony admissible. |
| Excited utterance hearsay exception | Castellani’s statements about the complainant’s account should be excluded as hearsay. | Court properly admitted statements as excited utterances. | Court acted within its discretion; exception applies. |
| Consolidated court cost constitutionality | Section 133.102(a)(1) unconstitutional under separation of powers; funds not court costs. | statute constitutional; severability allows portioning to permissible funds. | Statute and $133 court cost affirmed; challenges rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckett v. State, 797 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (qualifications for expert testimony; admissibility of expert opinion)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Rule 702; qualifications, reliability, relevance)
- Carson, Ex parte, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1942) (facial challenge to court costs; separation of powers; general principles for costs)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (nonpunitive nature of court costs; comparison to other costs)
- Ex parte Caldwell, 58 S.W.3d 127 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (timing and adequacy of appellate challenges to trial judgments)