Vega, Jose Luis Jr.
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 528
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Vega was convicted by a jury of three drug offenses after entrapment defenses were rejected; the entrapment issue was raised on appeal.
- A confidential informant, Jerry, told investigators Vega could supply a large amount of methamphetamine to Johnson County.
- Officer Whitlock conducted a buy-bust in Johnson County; Vega and Whitlock met at a Waffle House and a first sale occurred, with video/audio evidence.
- Jerry allegedly induced Vega to sell drugs by befriending him and providing money; Vega testified Jerry offered financial help due to family hardship.
- A second sale occurred shortly after; Vega was arrested after a larger arrangement and additional drugs were found in his possession.
- The trial judge charged entrapment with an abstract definition and defined law-enforcement agents, but the application paragraph named only Whitlock, omitting Jerry as an agent; Vega did not object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of Jerry from the application paragraph preserved entrapment error | Vega argued omission narrowed entrapment; egregious harm. | State argued error was harmless; entrapment could be considered through Whitlock. | Harmless error; no egregious harm; affirmed. |
| Whether trial court’s entrapment charge was correct as applied to the facts | Vega contends entrapment applied to first sale by Jerry and Whitlock. | State contends charge adequately covered inducement via Whitlock and implied Jerry. | Charge error, but not reversible; entrapment applied to all relevant conduct and overall charge was sufficient. |
| Whether the failure to name Jerry as a law-enforcement agent in the application paragraph affected guilt | Jerry’s role as a law-enforcement agent should be explicit. | Inducement by Jerry was encompassed by the broad terms of “law enforcement agent.” | No egregious harm; error harmless; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (forfeiture rules and Almanza governs harm, not automatic reversal)
- Barrera v. State, 982 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defect in charge on a defensible issue is error if the issue is charged; harm analysis applies)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (establishes harm standards for Almanza review of jury-charge errors)
- Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (harm analysis in contextual charge errors; standard factors Panels consider)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (application paragraph must specify all conditions for verdict)