Soto, Armando Fermin v. State
05-11-01062-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- At ~4:45 a.m. on Sept. 6, 2010, a truck traveling ~95 mph swerved and struck a Nissan Sentra and a Chrysler; two occupants of the Sentra (Tuong Le and Tri Khuu) died.
- Appellant Armando Soto was arrested at the scene; deputies observed signs of intoxication and his hospital blood-alcohol was 0.19.
- Airbag Control Module data and a video reenactment showed high speed and accelerator input; DNA from the deployed airbag matched Soto.
- Soto made statements to medical personnel and to his mother indicating his foot was on the accelerator and he caused the crash; he also later told his mother he may have fallen asleep.
- Soto was convicted by a jury of two counts of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years on each count; he appealed raising six issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Soto) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admission of crash reenactment video (Embry) | Video aids jury understanding; cumulative of other evidence | Video was testimonial out-of-court statement by non-testifying witnesses (created from their reports); violated confrontation | Court assumed video testimonial but found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Soto was driver | Eyewitnesses, airbag DNA match, airbag data, Soto's admissions support identification | Alternative theory: unidentified person could have been driver; hospital statement he was rear-ended | Evidence sufficient under Jackson; reasonable jury could find Soto drove and caused deaths |
| Judicial comment/weight of evidence (judge said "that is simply a lie") | Judge clarified appearance of impropriety and denied bias | Comment improperly accused witness (mother) of lying and prejudiced jury | Court held judge corrected misimpression, did not accuse mother of lying; any error harmless |
| Admission of autopsy photographs (Rule 403) | Photos relevant to injuries/identification and not gruesome; probative > prejudicial | Photographs were prejudicial and cumulative | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting photos; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for not suppressing blood/DNA (warrantless draw) | Evidence lawfully obtained under then-applicable implied-consent provisions; counsel reasonable to not file frivolous motions | Counsel should have moved to suppress blood/DNA; failure was deficient and prejudicial | Record silent on counsel strategy; given then-governing law counsel's choice not deficient; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause: testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (testimonial forensic reports and confrontation)
- Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (harmless beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test for confrontation errors)
- Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (factors for assessing constitutional error harm)
- Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (deference to jury in sufficiency review)
- Villarreal v. State, 475 S.W.3d 784 (warrantless blood draws and Fourth Amendment issues)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Texas implied-consent framework for blood draws)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (standards for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Rule 403 factors and trial court discretion on photographic evidence)