Romeo Hinojosa v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4884
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Hinojosa and co-defendants Zambrano and Linares were charged with second-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and first-degree aggravated kidnapping; Hinojosa was a driver/primary actor.
- Victim Abundez testified he was abducted at gunpoint from his home and transported in an SUV, with a firearm discarded from the vehicle; no owner was conclusively identified.
- The jury found Hinojosa not guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and guilty of aggravated kidnapping; punishment was 15 years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.
- Hinojosa appealed, challenging legal insufficiency of the evidence, a variance between indictment and trial charge, and allegedly improper closing arguments by the State.
- The court conducted a sufficiency review, variance analysis, and an appraisal of alleged prosecutorial error, ultimately affirming the conviction and rejecting the challenges.
- The opinion was reissued to clarify factual assertions and deny rehearing, maintaining that the record supports the conviction under a party liability theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping | Hinojosa contends no abducting act or shared intent proven | State relies on presence and conspiracy to support liability | Sufficient evidence supports guilt under party liability |
| Variance between indictment and court charge | Indictment limited abduct to secreting/holding; charge allowed deadly force theory | Variance prejudicial; misalignment of theory | No material variance; hypothetically correct charge satisfied |
| Prosecutor's closing arguments | State improperly framed evidence and attacked defense; comments prejudicial | Arguments were proper, responsive to defense, and not improper | No reversible error; arguments were proper or harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. State, 281 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for legal sufficiency on appeal)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury credibility and inference rules)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constrained standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge framework)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (materiality of variance and indictment-evidence alignment)
- Santana v. State, 59 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (two-pronged test for material variance prejudice and notice)
- Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (indictment elements and hypothetically correct charge analysis)
- Beasley v. State, 864 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (propriety of arguments in response to defense)
- Wilson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (prosecutor's oath-related argument deemed harmful when unsupported by record)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (prosecutorial comments and defense-counsel portrayal considerations)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (bounds of improper jury argument and defense-counsel targeting)