Rogelio Mora v. State
14-14-00449-CR
| Tex. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- On May 19, 2002 PJ Rodriguez was shot and killed during an apparent robbery as he was forced out of a truck; three occupants were present.
- Kelly Holloway, a backseat passenger, observed the assailant approach the passenger side, lean into the truck, yank a necklace, and later shoot the complainant; she viewed his face under streetlight illumination and identified Mora from photo arrays immediately.
- An informant provided names including Rogelio Mora; two other occupants identified two different suspects from photo arrays.
- A probable-cause warrant was issued in Sept. 2002; Mora disappeared, left his job, and was located in Matamoros, Mexico in 2010; he was arrested and returned to U.S. custody in 2012.
- Mora was tried in May 2014, convicted of capital murder (murder in course of robbery) and sentenced to life without parole; he appealed on sufficiency and evidentiary grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mora) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to identify Mora as the shooter | Holloway’s in-person observation and prompt, unhesitating photo-array identification are sufficient for identity | Single eyewitness, brief encounter, and elapsed time rendered ID unreliable and insufficient | Court: Affirmed — single eyewitness ID (immediate photo ID, in-court ID, focused observation) was legally sufficient |
| Whether testimony that Mora fled to Mexico and was arrested there was admissible (Rule 403) | Flight and movement to Mexico, plus efforts to locate/apprehend, were relevant circumstantial evidence explaining delay and showing consciousness of guilt | Evidence was highly prejudicial, suggested bad character, confused jury, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice | Court: Affirmed — flight evidence relevant, defendant offered no innocent explanation, and probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (review of sufficiency under Jackson)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (single-legal-sufficiency standard applied)
- Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d 75 (single eyewitness can support conviction)
- Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (flight admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt)
- Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877 (flight relevance and when excluded)
- Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84 (flight evidence to show efforts to locate/apprehend)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (factors for Rule 403 balancing)