Opinion issued December 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00954-CR

———————————

RALPH GARCIA, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 12CR2430

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Ralph Garcia, Jr. of murder and the court assessed 

his punishment at twenty-eight years’ confinement in TDCJ. In a single issue, 

appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a statement 

that appellant’s ex-girlfriend made to law enforcement. We affirm.
2

Background

The complainant, Maxie Flowers, was shot and killed as he was riding his 

bicycle down a residential street in Galveston on October 13, 2011.

Appellant’s ex-girlfriend, Sarah Alvarez, was the first witness called to testify 

at appellant’s trial in 2014. Alvarez initially denied having a clear recollection of the 

night that Flowers was killed. She testified that she was under the influence of drugs 

and alcohol that night and that the events of that evening were a “blur.” Although 

she initially admitted to being present when Flowers was shot, Alvarez testified 

moments later that she and appellant were at the movies when the offense occurred,

and that the only thing she remembered was “waking up the next morning” at 

appellant’s parents’ house “and seeing cops down the street around a body.”

Alvarez acknowledged that she had previously given two statements to the 

police about the shooting, one in March and one in September 2012, but she claimed 

that she had been drinking heavily and taking Xanax during that period of time and 

she did not recall making those statements. 

On further direct examination by the State, Alvarez testified that she had 

recently watched her videotaped statements to police and acknowledged that, in that 

in her second statement in September, she told the police that she and appellant 

walked to a house down the street to buy marijuana the night Flowers was shot, but 

returned to appellant’s parents’ house empty-handed. According to Alvarez, she also 
3

told police in her September statement that appellant was angry because Flowers—

“the guy on the bike”—had said something to Alvarez while they were trying to buy 

drugs and then he followed the couple back to appellant’s parents’ house. Alvarez 

also admitted to telling the police that she was in her mother’s truck with appellant 

when appellant shot Flowers two or three times. Alvarez claimed that she had no 

independent recollection of these events and that she was only testifying based on 

her review of her prior statement.

Alvarez, who was wearing a county jumpsuit during trial, admitted to the jury 

that she did not want to testify and that she had been arrested after she failed to 

comply with the trial subpoena. She also admitted to telling the prosecutor that she 

did not want to testify at appellant’s trial because she was afraid of retaliation. 

After cross-examination, Alvarez was allowed to re-review her video 

statements. On redirect examination, Alvarez testified that her review of those 

conflicting statements refreshed her memory about the events surrounding the 

murder. Alvarez told the jury that she had lied in her first statement when she denied 

any knowledge of the shooting, and that her second statement, in which she admitted 

to be being present when the offense occurred, was the truth.

Alvarez further testified on redirect that when she and appellant were at the

“weed house,” Flowers remarked to appellant how pretty Alvarez was and then 

Flowers followed them back to appellant’s parents’ home and refused to leave. 
4

According to Alvarez, she and appellant went into appellant’s bedroom where 

appellant retrieved a shotgun from underneath his mattress. Appellant told Alvarez 

that God put him on this Earth “to do his dirty work.” Alvarez and appellant then 

drove down the street in Alvarez’s mother’s truck to where Flowers was riding his 

bike. According to Alvarez, appellant stopped the truck, took the shotgun from his 

lap, pointed it out the partially opened window and shot Flowers twice before they 

returned to appellant’s house. Alvarez testified that she could “remember [the 

shooting] like it was yesterday.” Alvarez also testified that she had tried to talk to 

Officer Clemente Garcia about the incident on September 3, 2012, but that she 

jumped out of his patrol car and ran off after he told her they were being recorded. 

Officer Garcia took the witness stand and testified that he is appellant’s cousin 

and that he met Alvarez when she and appellant were dating. Garcia stated that he 

responded to a disturbance call on September 3, 2012, and when he arrived he found 

Alvarez at the scene. According to Garcia, Alvarez was crying, very upset, and she 

appeared to be under the influence. Garcia testified that he escorted Alvarez back to 

his patrol car and that he intended to take her to her mother’s home, where she would 

be safe, but Alvarez jumped out of the car while en route. Garcia also testified that 

Alvarez indicated to him that she was a witness to Flowers’s murder and that she 

was with appellant the night of the shooting. The State played a nine-second video 

clip of a statement Alvarez made to Garcia while she was sitting in his patrol car. In 
5

that clip, Alvarez, who is sobbing, tells Garcia: “I am the key to the whole thing 

because I was there with [appellant]. I could . . . I could be charged with murder, 

too.” The court admitted the statement under the statement-against-interest 

exception to the hearsay rule.

The record reflects that no physical evidence linking appellant to the scene 

was admitted into evidence at trial.1 The shotgun that was used to shoot Flowers was 

never recovered, and Alvarez’s mother’s truck was never searched for evidence. 

Although other witnesses testified at trial, Alvarez was the only witness who 

identified appellant as the shooter. 

Admission of Alvarez’s Statement was Harmless Error

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted 

Alvarez’s statement to Officer Garcia into evidence as a statement against penal 

interest because the statement did not expose Alvarez to criminal liability and the 

statement lacked sufficient corroborating circumstances. Appellant further contends 

that he was harmed by the admission of this evidence because Alvarez was the key 

witness in the case, inconsistencies in her testimony and statements to police placed 

her credibility at issue, and the inadmissible statement was used to bolster her 

credibility. Appellant further argues that, given the lack of any other significant 

 

1

 The police recovered two red shotgun shell casings from the scene and found green 

shotgun shells in appellant’s bedroom.
6

evidence implicating him in Flowers’s murder, the State’s emphasis on Alvarez’s 

statement during its closing argument demonstrates that the admission of this 

statement had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial.

A. Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence for an 

abuse of discretion. Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 

“The erroneous admission of a hearsay statement constitutes non-constitutional error 

that is subject to a harm analysis.” Coleman v. State, 428 S.W.3d 151, 162 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d). “We do not overturn a conviction if, 

after examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not 

influence the verdict or had but a slight effect.” Id. An erroneous admission of 

evidence does not constitute reversible error if the same or similar evidence is 

admitted without objection at another point in the trial. See Brooks v. State, 990 

S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

B. Analysis

Even if Alvarez’s statement was inadmissible hearsay, the admission of the

statement was nevertheless harmless. Alvarez’s statement did not reveal any 

evidence that was not already before the jury. Alvarez had already testified, without 

objection, that she was in the truck with appellant when appellant shot Flowers, and 

that appellant shot Flowers, in part, because Flowers had made a comment about 
7

Alvarez to appellant. Officer Garcia also testified that Alvarez indicated to him that 

she was an eyewitness to the shooting. Therefore, Alvarez’s statement to Garcia is 

cumulative of Alvarez’s and Garcia’s testimony and any error in the admission of 

the statement was harmless. See Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2003) (“An error [if any] in the admission of evidence is cured where the same 

evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.”); Brooks, 990 S.W.2d at 287

(holding that any error in admission of hearsay testimony was harmless in light of 

other properly admitted evidence proving same fact).

After examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that admission 

of Alvarez’s statement did not influence the verdict or had but a slight effect. See 

Coleman, 428 S.W.3d at 162.

We overrule appellant’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Russell Lloyd

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).