Robelio Aviles-Barroso v. State
14-14-00142-CR
| Tex. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Rogelio Aviles-Barroso appealed the trial court's admission of a witness Diana's voice identification; the appellate court affirmed as modified.
- The court applied the Neil v. Biggers five-factor test to assess reliability of the voice identification.
- Diana heard the speaker during the offense, focused on his voice, described a Spanish dialect, and later made a confident identification despite a ~20-year gap.
- Defense presented expert testimony questioning voice-identification reliability over long retention intervals and across dialects; record development on these scientific issues was limited.
- The concurring opinion agrees with the outcome under Biggers but urges reconsideration of Biggers factors for voice IDs given emerging empirical research showing differences between auditory and visual identification reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of voice identification | Diana's identification was unreliable given long delay and cross-dialect issues. | Under Biggers Diana had opportunity to hear, paid attention, described dialect, and was certain; admission proper. | Court upheld admission under Biggers. |
| Applicability of Biggers factors to voice IDs | Biggers factors may not properly capture voice-identification reliability. | Biggers is binding precedent and was satisfied here. | Court applied Biggers but concurrence urges reexamination. |
| Effect of retention interval on voice ID | Long (20-year) delay destroys reliability. | Although delay exists, other Biggers factors supported reliability. | Held that, under precedent, other factors outweighed delay and admission was permissible. |
| Cross-lingual/dialect concerns | Dialect differences can significantly reduce earwitness accuracy; more scrutiny needed. | State noted witness detected and described dialect; no controlling authority requiring exclusion. | Court acknowledged concerns but admitted evidence; concurrence recommends giving dialect/familiarity greater weight going forward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (establishing five-factor test for identification reliability)
- Williams v. State, 850 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (applying Biggers factors to voice identifications)
- Davis v. State, 180 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (precedent supporting admission under Biggers)