Rogelio Delacerda v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5558

Background

Appellant Rogelio Delacerda was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Delacerda was sixteen years old at the time of the offense; the shooting occurred January 21, 1997 in Houston, Texas, resulting in the death of Jesus Contreras.
Multiple witnesses testified about a truckshot incident; some identified Delacerda or co-defendants as the shooter, while others implicated David Cruz or Jose Carreon.
The case involved a juvenile-to-district court transfer; the district court issued an order assuming jurisdiction after transfer from the juvenile court, which Delacerda challenged as defective.
During trial and punishment, the State presented gang evidence (Latin Kings) and various evidentiary questions, including a photospread identification and autopsy photographs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction despite an allegedly defective transfer order	Delacerda argued the transfer order was invalid (undated, no judge name, not properly stamped) leaving jurisdiction in juvenile court.	State contends the order, though imperfect, was sufficient to transfer jurisdiction and preserve review.	District court properly assumed jurisdiction notwithstanding defects.
Whether the State committed improper voir dire by asking about verdicts without physical evidence	Delacerda asserts the commitment question impermissibly forced jurors to commit to a verdict without physical evidence.	State asserts the question properly tests for bias and is a valid commitment question.	Question was a proper commitment question and not reversible error.
Whether Defense Exhibit 2 was admitted and properly pronounced	Delacerda contends the court admitted Defense Exhibit 2 but failed to pronounce it admitted.	State contends the exhibit was not admitted and the omission was immaterial since the record shows no error.	No reversible error; court record supports no admission of Defense Exhibit 2.
Whether the Officer Chavez testimony about the interview and its characterization as not helpful was improper	Delacerda asserts Family Code procedures for juvenile statements were violated and the officer’s testimony about not being helpful was improper.	State argues the statement was admissible as non-custodial and properly limited, with cure via instruction.	Statement admissible; no reversible error in allowing the testimony and limiting instruction.
Whether the transferred intent instruction was properly included	Delacerda contends the instruction should have named the intended victim; lack of specificity renders it improper.	State argues transferred intent does not require naming the exact victim in the indictment, and any error was harmless.	Transferred intent instruction proper; any error was harmless.

Key Cases Cited

Alberty v. State, 250 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (article 4.18 scope and preservation when juvenile transfer is challenged)
Speer v. State, 890 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (transfer orders and jurisdictional presumptions)
Ex parte Waggoner, 61 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (jurisdictional transfer and waiver concepts in juvenile cases)
Moss v. State, 13 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (transfer order filing and district court jurisdiction nuances)
Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (three-part test for commitment questions in voir dire)
Harris v. State, 122 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (commitment questions testing bias against required evidence)
Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (proper scope and limits of commitment questions during voir dire)
Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (gang evidence and its relevance to punishment)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (charge inclusion for transferred intent without indictment amendment)