Rodriguez-Olivas, Juan Manuel
PD-1482-15
| Tex. | Nov 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Juan Rodriguez-Olivas was tried and convicted of murder; jury assessed life imprisonment after rejecting his sudden-passion defense.
- A witness (Shaun Kaufman) told police that Rodriguez-Olivas had shown him a dead body in a locked closet at the trailer where he lived; Kaufman went to police and identified the trailer and the names involved.
- Officers set up surveillance, stopped Rodriguez-Olivas’s car for traffic violations, detained him and the passenger, searched the car with claimed consent and found a BB gun, a prescription bottle with many hydrocodone pills, and a credit card in the victim’s name.
- After prolonged on-scene questioning (about 69 minutes total) and further interaction, Investigator Jones asked Rodriguez-Olivas to accompany officers to his trailer to check for “Linda”; Rodriguez-Olivas said, “Sure, I guess,” led officers inside, unlocked a closet, and officers discovered the decomposing body.
- Rodriguez-Olivas moved to suppress evidence on grounds the stop/detention was unlawful, the detention was unreasonably prolonged, and his consent to search was involuntary or tainted; he also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for rejecting sudden passion and alleged prosecutorial misstatement at punishment.
- The court of appeals affirmed: it held (1) the detention was a lawful investigative detention supported by the informant and corroborating facts, (2) the duration and continuation of the detention were reasonable, (3) consent to search was voluntary (and scope encompassed the closet), (4) the jury’s rejection of sudden passion was supported, and (5) the prosecutor’s arguable misstatement was harmless given the correct jury charge and instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez-Olivas’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did appellate court improperly make fact findings from video rather than defer to trial court? | Court of appeals reviewed video and made independent factual findings, violating deferential review rules. | Appellate review may consider video but must uphold trial court if record supports ruling. | Court of appeals’ approach was challenged in PDR; appellate opinion nevertheless applied deferential standard and affirmed. |
| 2. Was the stop/detention unlawfully prolonged (detention scope/duration)? | Detention exceeded the purpose of traffic stop; BB gun, pills, and credit card did not create reasonable suspicion to continue and were mere ‘‘fishing.’’ | Citizen-informant’s detailed, corroborated report plus in-stop facts (BB gun appearance, pills, victim’s credit card, passenger named Linda, evasive responses) gave reasonable suspicion to continue investigation. | Detention was reasonable under totality of circumstances; continuation and 69-minute duration were lawful. |
| 3. Was consent to search residence involuntary or fruit of illegal detention; did consent cover the closet? | Consent was coerced by show of authority, lengthy detention, and occurred during illegal seizure; consent therefore tainted and involuntary; searching closet exceeded scope. | Consent was voluntary ("Sure, I guess"), given after officers re-holstered weapons and during consensual interaction; unlocking the closet constituted additional, objective consent to view inside. | Trial court’s implied finding of voluntary, untainted consent and scope including the closet was not clearly erroneous. |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence on sudden passion and prosecutor’s punishment-phase argument | Jury should have found sudden passion; prosecutor misstated law by implying defendant bore burden of proving ordinary temperament and used improper character-based remarks; overruling objection magnified harm. | Jury could disbelieve defendant; charge correctly stated law and court instructed jury to follow the charge; any misstatement harmless. | Jury’s rejection of sudden passion is not against great weight; prosecutor’s arguable misstatement was harmless given correct charge and instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of appellate review of suppression rulings: deference to trial court on historical facts and credibility)
- Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussion of deference and application-of-law-to-fact review)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reliability of identified citizen-informant and cumulative information for reasonable suspicion)
- Hill v. State, 303 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) (officer may continue detention if reasonable suspicion develops during lawful traffic stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative detention standard: reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent is objective and measured by reasonable person standard)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (allocation and review of burdens on affirmative defenses like sudden passion)
- McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (adequate cause definition involves objective-subjective blend; ordinary-man test)