Perez, Jose Diaz v. State
PD-0728-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Jose Dias Perez was convicted of murder (50-year sentence) after a jury trial; he appealed and the 12th Court of Appeals (Tyler) affirmed.
- Police executed a search warrant for weapons/blood/items; officers seized a handwritten Spanish note (introduced at trial).
- Perez gave recorded statements to Detective Battley at the scene and made unsolicited statements to a jailer during booking; both were admitted at trial.
- During the State’s rebuttal, the court admitted testimony about an unadjudicated, 30-year-old shooting of a former partner as extraneous-offense evidence to rebut Perez’s claim that the victim’s death was accidental.
- A juror told the court she knew the extraneous-offense witness and would find her credible; the trial continued without dismissing the juror (the State said it would not object if the defense agreed to dismiss).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of handwritten note seized during search | Perez: note was a "personal writing" protected by art. 18.02 and unlawfully seized; plain-view exception inapplicable | State: note related to the offense and was properly seized in plain view during a valid warrant search | Court: overruled; note admissible under plain-view/good-faith search principles |
| 2. Admissibility of statement to Detective Battley (Miranda/voluntariness) | Perez: statement involuntary (intoxication/handcuffs) and not in strict compliance with art. 38.22; should be excluded | State: statement voluntary on totality; even if art. 38.22 not strictly followed, subsection 3(c) corroboration exception applies | Court: overruled; statement voluntary and admissible under art. 38.22(3)(c) corroboration exception |
| 3. Admissibility of booking statement to jailer (Miranda) | Perez: jailer’s question elicited incriminating statement in custody without Miranda warnings | State: question was a routine booking/administrative question reasonably related to booking (competency to continue); booking-question exception applies | Court: overruled; booking-question exception applied and statement admitted |
| 4. Failure to excuse juror who knew rebuttal witness | Perez: juror admitted a prior working relationship and said she found witness credible; trial court should have excused juror (or proceed by agreement with 11 jurors) | State: no formal agreement occurred to dismiss juror; State would not object if defense agreed to dismiss | Court: overruled; record shows no agreement to dismiss and no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial or excusal |
| 5. Sufficiency of the evidence absent the note and statements | Perez: without the note and the two statements, evidence is legally/factually insufficient to support murder conviction | State: note and statements were properly admitted and, along with other evidence, sustain conviction | Court: overruled; since the items/statements were admissible, sufficiency challenge fails |
| 6. Admissibility and prejudicial effect of 30-year-old extraneous offense | Perez: unadjudicated, remote offense was too old, too prejudicial, and impermissibly used as propensity evidence | State: extraneous offense admitted to rebut accident theory; similarities and limiting instruction render it admissible and not unduly prejudicial | Court: overruled; extraneous offense sufficiently similar and probative as to intent; Rule 403 balance proper; denial of mistrial for inadvertent reference was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (right-to-counsel and warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1968) (fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree principle)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1964) (due-process voluntariness rule for confessions)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prejudicial effect of prior convictions and propensity concerns)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standards for admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence and Rule 403 analysis)