402 S.W.3d 425
Tex. App.2013Background
- Williams was convicted of murder in Harris County after denial of suppression motions.
- Indictment included a prior enhancement; defendant pled not guilty.
- Witnesses observed the shooting; multiple witnesses identified or observed actions.
- A photo array preceded an in-court identification challenge; Gomez’s in-court references were disputed.
- Appellant gave a recorded custodial statement; warnings were given and waiver was contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the in-court identification tainted by prior tainted pretrial identification? | Williams argues Gomez’s in-court ID was tainted by the suggestive photo array. | State contends any error was harmless given other identifying witnesses. | Harmless error; other witnesses identified Williams. |
| Was the custodial statement voluntary and admissible? | Waiver/voluntariness of rights was improperly considered due to officer's remark. | Waiver was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Statement admissible; waiver voluntary. |
| Was Adams’s lay/opinion testimony properly admitted under Evid. Rules 602/701? | Testimony lacked personal knowledge. | Testimony based on perception and experiences; permissible lay opinion. | Admission not error; testimony within permissible lay opinion. |
| Was Adams’s testimony about things appellant said/he told admissible as hearsay or under Rule 801(e)(2)? | Testimony implicated appellant’s statements; probative as party-opponent admission. | Statements did not fit hearsay exception given how offered. | Not hearsay under Rule 801(e)(2); Rule 107 not preserved; error not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for suppression findings and deference to trial court)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to historical fact findings; law-to-fact review)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (implicit findings presumed if supported by record)
- Panetti, 891 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994) (equivocal request for counsel; continuance permitted until unequivocal invocation)
- Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standards for voluntary waiver of rights in custodial interrogation)