RODRIGUEZ-FLORES v. State
351 S.W.3d 612
Tex. App.2011Background
- Rodriguez-Flores, 17, participated in a February 7, 2008 aggravated kidnapping of a 5-year-old boy, A.J., in the presence of his mother and sibling.
- The kidnaping was planned by Vences Garcia and Marco Flores; Vences threatened family members to compel Marco and Rodriguez-Flores to act.
- Rodriguez-Flores testified in defense and the jury was instructed on the duress affirmative defense; the defense was rejected.
- Two weeks before the kidnapping, Rodriguez-Flores and Marco surveilled A.J.’s neighborhood with a blue Alero; this aided the abduction.
- Rodriguez-Flores admitted participation at the police station; surveillance and interviews supported the State’s theory of the offense.
- The jury found Rodriguez-Flores guilty of aggravated kidnapping and that A.J. was not released in a safe place; punishment was 29 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire on duress regardless of victim’s age | Rodriguez-Flores contends proper duress-questioning was denied. | State improperly blocked commitment questions about following the duress law. | Harmless error; no reversible impact on verdict. |
| Challenge for cause to venireperson Unberhagen | Unberhagen biased on range of punishment, duress, accomplice witnesses. | Court should have excused for cause. | No abuse of discretion; can follow full range of punishment. |
| Admission of pretrial services officer testimony (Ewing) | Ewing’s interview was custodial and should have invoked Miranda; removed defendant’s rights. | Ewing not a law-enforcement agent; interview not custodial. | Assumed error, but harmless. |
| Legal sufficiency of evidence that victim released in a safe place | Evidence supports finding that release was not in a safe place. | Evidence insufficient to defeat safe-release finding. | Evidence supports the jury’s negative finding on safe release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (three-part test for commitment questions; proper inquiry to reveal bias against law)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (victim’s age as bias factor in commitment questions; limits on scope)
- Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (right to an impartial jury; voir dire limits on commitment questions)
- Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (harm analysis for denial of proper voir dire question)
- Jones v. State, 223 S.W.3d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (constitutional right to ask proper voir dire questions preserved; heightened standard of review)
- Cardenas v. State, 325 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (limits on commitment questions when including extraneous facts)