Robert Adrian Rendon v. State
04-16-00803-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Officer Bradley Durst stopped a vehicle on suspicion of intoxicated driving; the driver shot Durst and fled. Durst survived due to a vest.
- About 45 minutes to an hour later, Deputy Jared Moore responded to a residence where Tanya Flores, a passenger in the car, sought help.
- Flores told Deputy Moore she had been in the car with her cousin Robert Rendon, and Rendon shot the officer; she was visibly upset, crying, and gasping.
- At trial, Deputy Moore testified to Flores’s out-of-court identification of Rendon over the State’s hearsay objection; the trial court admitted the testimony under the excited-utterance exception.
- The dash-cam video (admitted without objection) corroborated Flores’s emotional state and showed her identifying Rendon roughly two minutes into the recorded conversation.
- Rendon was convicted of attempted capital murder, received life imprisonment, and appealed solely challenging admission of Flores’s identification as hearsay not covered by the excited-utterance exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Flores’s out-of-court ID under excited-utterance exception | State: Flores’s statement was admissible because she remained under stress from the shooting when she identified Rendon | Rendon: Statement was taken ~45–60 minutes after the shooting during police questioning, so not a spontaneous excited utterance | Court: Admission was within trial court’s discretion; Flores was still dominated by excitement so exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing hearsay-exception rulings and excited-utterance analysis)
- Evans v. State, 480 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (explaining rationale for excited-utterance reliability)
- Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (factors including delay and whether declarant remained under stress)
- Vera v. State, 709 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986) (example where significant delay and intervening conversations defeated excited-utterance claim)