Santos Salinas Jr. v. State
13-15-00310-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2015Background
- Appellant Santos Salinas, Jr. was convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention (with a prior) after fleeing officers following a nighttime encounter in a car-wash parking lot; sentence: five years and $2,500 fine.
- Officers Jeremy Stewart and a trainee approached a parked vehicle around 11:40 p.m.; Stewart testified the vehicle flashed high beams, and he ordered Salinas back to his car.
- Video (no audio) shows officers in uniform, flashlights used, dashboard camera recording, and Salinas complying with directions; officers later moved Salinas to the front of the vehicle, patted him down, found an unlabeled pill bottle, then attempted an arrest that resulted in a scuffle and Salinas fleeing.
- Defense argued the encounter was an unlawful investigative detention (no reasonable suspicion), so any subsequent attempted arrest was tainted and the evading conviction could not stand.
- Trial court gave an Article 38.23 juror instruction referencing only "articulable suspicion" (omitting the required "reasonable suspicion" standard and the need to suspect criminal activity); defendant’s requested charge (bench-filed) was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Salinas) | Held (as argued in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the initial contact a consensual encounter or an investigative detention? | Officers acted reasonably to investigate suspicious conduct (flash of high beams, late hour, location). | Stewart’s commands, close approach, uniform/visible weapons, and flashlights converted the encounter into a seizure. | Brief argues it was a detention (either when told to return to car or when moved to front). |
| 2. If detention occurred, was it supported by reasonable suspicion? | Facts gave officers grounds for suspicion and investigation. | Known facts (time, location, alleged headlight flash, nervousness) were insufficient—no specific, articulable facts indicating criminal activity. | Brief argues there was no reasonable suspicion; detention unlawful. |
| 3. Does an unlawful investigative detention taint the later attempted arrest for purposes of evading-offense proof? | The attempted arrest was lawful if probable cause/grounds existed at arrest. | An arrest following an unlawful investigative detention is tainted; without a lawful arrest, evading element fails. | Brief argues Rodriguez doctrine requires acquittal because the attempted arrest was tainted. |
| 4. Was the Article 38.23 jury instruction erroneous and prejudicial? | The court’s instruction sufficed to allow jurors to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence. | Charge misstated law (used "articulable suspicion" and omitted that suspicion must concern criminal activity); defendant preserved error and suffered at least some (or egregious) harm. | Brief argues the instruction was erroneous and caused reversible harm (some or egregious). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (sets the reasonable-suspicion test for investigative detentions and distinguishes consensual encounters, detentions, and arrests)
- Rodriguez v. State, 578 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (an unlawful investigative detention taints subsequent arrest such that evasion cannot be proven)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for legal-sufficiency challenges under Jackson/Brooks)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion requires more than a mere hunch; facts must suggest criminal activity)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (a seizure requires a show of authority and submission to it)