Rebeca Renteria v. State
13-15-00574-CR
Tex. App.Aug 3, 2017Background
- Rebeca Renteria brought her two-week-old son C.R. to the hospital; doctors found extensive brain injury consistent with violent shaking and a high-velocity skull fracture.
- Renteria admitted to both a CPS investigator (Alonso) and a sheriff’s deputy (Monsivais) that she shook the baby; a videotaped statement to Monsivais was admitted at trial.
- Renteria moved in limine challenging voluntariness of the statement; the trial court held a hearing outside the jury, found the statement voluntary, and admitted the recording.
- At trial Renteria testified Alonso had threatened that her parents would go to jail if she did not confess, and that fear caused her confession to Monsivais; Alonso denied making any threat.
- The trial court failed to include a general Article 38.22 voluntariness instruction in the jury charge; Renteria did not request the instruction at the charge conference.
- A jury convicted Renteria of injury to a child (first-degree felony) and assessed life imprisonment; she appealed arguing egregious harm from omission of the voluntariness instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omitting a general Article 38.22 voluntariness instruction caused reversible error | Renteria: evidence presented a fact issue that Alonso’s alleged threat rendered her later confession involuntary, so the jury should have been instructed to determine voluntariness | State: Renteria did not request the instruction at trial and any omission did not cause egregious harm given the overall evidence | Court: Trial court erred in failing to include the instruction but omission did not cause egregious harm; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (framework requiring general voluntariness instruction when issue is raised and litigated)
- Vasquez v. State, 225 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (voluntariness instruction required if reasonable jury could find statement involuntary)
- Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for egregious harm review and factors to assess jury-charge error)
- Contreras v. State, 312 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (threats to family can render confession involuntary)
- Ellison v. State, 86 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harm analysis for omission of voluntariness instruction focuses on omission’s impact, not admission)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error)