Samuel Jacob Perez v. State, 08-14-00050-CR

Background

Appellant Samuel Jacob Perez was convicted of murdering Cameron Canada by stabbing him during a street fight outside a house party on July 22, 2012; eyewitness Adarius Silas identified Perez as the stabber.
After the stabbing, a party attendee Ruben Valenzuela’s phone repeatedly received calls; Officer Samuel Ornelas answered some calls and heard an excited caller exclaim, “Sammy just killed someone.”
Officers traced calls to a white Impala at a nearby Circle K where Appellant and his brother Daniel Perez were found; a cell phone in that vehicle had placed multiple calls to Valenzuela’s phone shortly after the stabbing.
At trial the court admitted Officer Ornelas’s testimony of the phone call over hearsay objection, reasoning the caller’s statement was an excited utterance (and also considered co‑conspirator/non‑hearsay theories).
Defense witness Lionel Martinez had given a prior written statement to police but testified at trial he had no memory of making it; the trial court excluded the prior written statement after hearsay objection and the defense did not invoke the recorded‑recollection exception at trial.
Appellant appealed two evidentiary rulings: (1) admission of the phone‑call statement, and (2) exclusion of Lionel’s prior written statement. The court affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perez)	Held
Admissibility of phone caller statement heard by Officer Ornelas	Statement admissible as an excited utterance (and non‑hearsay as co‑conspirator statement)	Statement was inadmissible hearsay; trial court abused discretion in admitting it	Court upheld admission under excited‑utterance exception; no abuse of discretion
Whether the phone caller attribution was sufficiently linked to Appellant	Caller reasonably inferred to be Daniel Perez based on identification and proximity; admission permitted	Attribution speculative; admission left jury with impression of a pseudo‑confession by Appellant	Court found reasonable inference that Daniel was caller and that excited‑utterance exception applied; even indirect inference would be admissible under other rules if needed
Exclusion of Lionel Martinez’s prior written statement	State objected as hearsay; trial court excluded	Perez argued statement was admissible as recorded recollection (Rule 803(5)) and contained exculpatory information	Court held error not preserved: defense never invoked recorded‑recollection exception at trial and failed to offer the document or make an offer of proof; exclusion not reviewable
Preservation and appellate review issues for excluded evidence	Trial procedure required specific grounds and offer of proof to preserve error	Perez claimed trial court misdirected attention to hearsay within hearsay rather than recorded‑recollection	Court ruled appellant failed to specify the exception at trial and did not include the excluded statement in the record; issue overruled

Key Cases Cited

Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (framework for excited‑utterance analysis)
McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (declarant’s emotional state controls excited‑utterance inquiry)
Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for hearsay‑exception rulings)
Fowler v. State, 379 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (excited‑utterance standard: impulse vs. reflection)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (need to specify at trial which hearsay exception is relied upon to preserve error)
Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (proponent must identify hearsay exception asserted)
Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (statement‑against‑interest admissibility principles)
Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (offer‑of‑proof requirement to preserve exclusion of evidence)
State v. White, 306 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate court may affirm on any correct legal theory supported by the record)