# IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APP EALS OF TEX AS

N O

. P D

- 0 9 6 7

- 1 5

G E N A R O G A L V A N A C O S T A , J R

. , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T H I R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

L I V E O A K C O U N T Y

J O H N S O N 

## , J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h A L C A L Á 

## , J

. , j o i n e d

.

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

This Court has reje cted the “divide and conquer ” analy sis in sufficie ncy challeng es, but such 1



## a posi tion does not g ive free rein to courts to rely on asser tions that any and all conduct displ ay ed

by a suspect constitutes “consc iousness of g uilt.” The court of appea ls was at least partially corr ect

in pointing out that some of the “incr iminating” evidenc e has no clea r association with criminal

activity

.

The opinion of the Court sets out twelve circ umstances that it maintains show appellant’ s

S m i t h v

. S t a t e , 3 3 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 2 5
, 4 4 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 1 )

. 1

## 2

aff irmative links to criminal activity

. Some of the twelve circ umstances have a potential to do that,

but some apply to ma

ny drivers that have no connec tion to criminal activity , and for most of those

circ umstances, no explanation of wh y they wer e clea r indicators of an aff

irmative link to the

contra band wa s g iven.

1.

The office rs testified that appellant was “unusually ” n er v o u s and jittery

. Most motorists 2



## who are stopped by law enfor ceme nt will be nervous to some deg ree ; such persons include me and

my husband, a retire d police office r. And appellant was stopped while driving on an invalid license

and having numerous outstanding tickets and car ry ing passeng ers who wer e in violation of seat-be lt

laws. This is a may

be/may be not indicator.

2.

I am unable to disce rn why the circ umstance of

“he w ould not stop talking ” is a n indicator

of g uilt. Some people talk when they are nervous, others clam up. We are not g iven much insight 3

Q

. Y o u a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a t y o u w e r e t r a i n e d a s t o w h a t ’ s c o n s i d e r e d " o r d i n a r y " o n a t r a f f i c s t o p v e r s u s w h a t ’ s 2

n o t c o n s i d e r e d o r d i n a r y ? A

. [ T r o o p e r P r a d o ] Y e s , m a ’ a m

. Q

. I s i t o r d i n a r y f

o r s o m e o n e t o b e c o m e n e r v o u s ? A

. Y e s

. 2 R

. R

. 9 4

.

Q

. A n d w h e n s o m e o n e i s n e r v o u s t h e y d i s p l a y s i g n s o f j i t t e r y o r t h e i r v o i c e s h a k e s o r t h i n g s l i k e t h a t ?

3

A

. [ T r o o p e r P r a d o ] Y e s

. Q

. A n d w h e n s o m e b o d y i s n e r v o u s t h e y s o m e t i m e s t a l k t o o q u i c k l y ? A

. Y e s

. Q

. A n d s o m e t i m e s p e o p l e t a l k a l o t w h e n t h e y ’ r e n e r v o u s ? A

. Y e s

. 2 R

. R

. 9 4

.

T r o o p e r G a r c í a , t h e m o r e e x p e r i e n c e d o f f i c e r , w a s m o r e e x p l i c i t

. Q

. W o u l d t h e d e g r e e o f n e r v e s t h a t w a s d i s p l a y e d b y M r

. A c o s t a , h o w w o u l d y o u r e l a t e t h a t t o n o r m a l

n e r v o u s n e s s b y s o m e o n e t h a t ’ s p u l l e d o v e r f o r a t r a f f i c s t o p ? A

. T h e n e r v o u s n e s s h e d i s p l a y e d o n t h i s d a y i s n o t n o r m a l

. O n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d a y w e p r o b a b l y s t o p p e d

a n y w h e r e f

r o m f i v e t o e i g h t c a r s , m a y b e t e n b e f o r e t h i s o n e

. S o w e a c t u a l l y e n c o u n t e r e d t e n d r i v e r s b e f o r e t h i s

## 3

into wha t a

ppellant said, or how much, except for two dissimi lar translations of a statement that is

descr ibed as “ arg

uably incriminating .”

3.

Testimony indicated that appellant and his wife g ave inconsistent answe rs when interviewe d

separ ately

, but the nature of those inconsistencies is no t i n the rec ord. The only testimony in the

rec ord about such inconsistencies is that one office r thought that the owner was a sister-in-law and

the other thoug ht that she was a niece

.

4.

The “ar g uably incriminating statement,” spoken in Spanish, was translated in two way s. I n

one translation, the statement could rea sonably be taken as incriminating ; “I ’ll g ive my self up if y ou

don’t arr est my family .” The other translation is less clea r; “I f I take the fall will y ou let them g o? ”

I n Eng lish, “taking the fall” is shorthand for admitting g uilt while not being g uilty of the act alleg ed.

Fr om the second statem en t , one could rea sonably conclude that appellant, althoug h not actua lly

knowing that the marij u an a wa s in the tire, was willing, for whateve r rea son, to take the blame.

Other suspects have done the same for many rea sons. Depe nding on which translation was used as

the basis for a juror’s conclusion and what infere nces wer e draw n from that translation, the statement

could be take n as evide nce of g uilt, or not.

5.

Since when is having only one key on a key ri n g (a n d a clea n car ) indicative of criminal

o n e , a n d t h i s o n e w a s d i f f e r e n t

. 2 R

. R

. 1 2 5

.

## 4

activity ? When one buy s a car , the single key comes on a key ring

, often wi t h a remote locking

4



## device

. Vehicle s usually come with more than one key

, bu t the duplicate key s are g ener ally on

separ ate r ings. The last time I had more than one key on my car key ring was when, in the past, a

separ ate key was neede d to open the trunk. Wit hout evidence supporting an asser tion that only

criminals kee p only

one key on the key

ring for a car , this “circumstanc e” ha s no releva nce. 5



## 6.

Be cause the car was borrowe d, the possibili ties include both know ledg e of contra band and

no knowledg e of contra

band. An interesting side-note is that both troopers testified that the owner

was ne ver pr ecise ly

identified and tha t their investigation went no further than appe llant. 6



## 7.

Appellant was car

ry ing $300 in cash, and it is asser ted in the opinion of the Court that he and

his wife wer e unemploy ed. Trooper Prado testified that he did not ask appellant about employ ment.

Q

. W h a t e l s e d i d y o u n o t i c e a b o u t t h e v e h i c l e o r t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a s s e n g e r s ? 4

A

. [ T r o o p e r P r a d o ] T h e v e h i c l e i t s e l f w a s p r e t t y c l e a n , y o u k n o w , d i d n ’ t l o o k l i k e i t h a d b e e n d i r t y , a l l

c a r p e t s w e r e c l e a n , s i n g l e k e y i n t h e i g n i t i o n , j u s t s t o o d o u t b e c a u s e m o s t c a r s a r e n ’ t t h a t c l e a n

. Q

. A n d t h e s i n g l e k e y i n t h e i g n i t i o n , h o w u n u s u a l i s t h a t ? A

. I t ’ s a c t u a l l y v e r y u n u s u a l

, b e c a u s e f o r t h e n o r m a l c o m m u t e r w e t e n d t o p u t o u r h o u s e k e y s o n t h e r e a n d k e y s t o a d o o r o f s o m e s o r t , w e d o t h a t

. I t ’ s n a t u r e

. 2 R

. R

. 7 4

.

T r o o p e r P r a d o c o n c e d e d o n c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t h a v i n g o n l y o n e k e y o n a k e y r i n g w o u l d n o t b e u n u s u a l

.

5 Q

. A n d i f I w e r e t o b o r r o w y o u r c a r , t h a t o n e [ t h e D P S v e h i c l e ] o r y o u r p e r s o n a l c a r , y o u w o u l d n ’ t e x p e c t

m e t o p u t m y h o u s e k e y o n i t , w o u l d y o u ? A

. N o

. Q

. I t w o u l d m a k e m o r e s e n s e t o k e e p y o u r p r o p e r t y , y o u r c a r , t h a t k e y s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e r e s t o f m y k e y s ? A

. Y e s

. Q

. S o t h a t ’ s n o t u n u s u a l ? A

. N o , I g u e s s n o t

. 2 R

. R

. 9 6

.

Q

. W h o d i d i t b e l o n g t o ?

6

A

. [ T r o o p e r G a r c í a ] I b e l i e v e h i s n i e c e

. I d o n ’ t k n o w t h e e x a c t n a m e , b u t i t d i d n ’ t c o m e b a c k t o h i m

. Q

. D i d y ’ a l l e v e r t r y t o i n t e r v i e w t h e o w n e r o f t h e v e h i c l e ? A

. N o

. 2 R

. R

. 1 3 4

.

## 5

When challeng ed by the s tate, he revised that assertion, but g ave no indica tion as to how he knew

that appellant was unemploy ed. 2 R.R. 75. He did ag ree that appellant had a disabled child and that 7



## the $300 could be c onnecte d to that fac t. 8



## Trooper Gar cía also testified about the stop and arr est. At trial, he was not even asked if any

inquiry had been made about appellant’ s employ ment. Thus the rec ord does not appea r to adequately

support an alleg ation that appellant wa s unemploy ed.

8.

Another circ umstance asser ted to suppor

t pr obable cause is the prese nce of a Santa Muerte

char m in appellant’ s wife’ s purse. Ba sed on that char m, the state arg ued that, beca use Santa Muerte

is the “patron sa int of drug traff icker s,” appe llant must be a drug traff icker

. The c harm would be 9

Q

. D i d y o u d i s c e r n i f e i t h e r M r

. A c o s t a o r h i s w i f e w e r e e m p l o y e d ? 7

A

. I d o n ’ t b e l i e v e I d i d

.

L a t e r , h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s r e v i s e d

.

Q

. [ t h e s t a t e ] T r o o p e r P r a d o , o n t h e b r e a k d i d y o u h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o g o o v e r y o u r r e p o r t ? A

. Y e s , s i r

. Q

. A n d s p e c i f

i c a l l y j u s t t h e p o r t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f M r

. A c o s t a a n d h i s w i f e ? A

. Y e s , s i r

. Q

. D i d y o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e e m p l o y e d o r u n e m p l o y e d ? A

. T h e y w e r e u n e m p l o y e d

. 2 R

. R

. 9 0

- 9 1

.

T h e r e i s n o e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h e n a n d h o w T r o o p e r P r a d o r e c e i v e d e m p l o y m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n

.

Q

. S o i t ’ s p o s s i b l e h e c o u l d h a v e a l s o r e c e i v e d a d i s a b i l i t y c h e c k f o r h i s s o n ? 8

A

. Y e s , m a ’ a m

. Q

. A n d t h a t c o u l d e x p l a i n t h e $ 3 0 0 ? A

. Y e s , m a ’ a m

. 2 R

. R

. 9 7

.

A

. [ T r o o p e r P r a d o ] A t t h e s c e n e , a s f a r a s r e l i g i o u s a r t i f

a c t s , w e s a w t h e B i b l e o n t h e d a s h b o a r d

, a n d t h e n l a t e r 9

d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h w e f o u n d w h a t I b e l i e v e d t o b e g o o d l u c k c h a r m s i n s i d e M r

. A c o s t a ’ s w i f e ’ s p u r s e

. Q

. W h a t w a s t h a t ? A

. T h e y a r e w h a t a r e c a l l e d t h e “ S a n t a M u e r t e ”

. Q

. A n d i n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e a n d t r a i n i n g w h a t i s t h a t ? A

. S h e ’ s s u p p o s e d t o b r i n g g o o d l u c k a n d f a i t h a n d g u i d a n c e t o p e o p l e , a n d s h e ’ s w o r s h i p p e d [ s i c ] I g u e s s b y

## 6

marg inally more rele vant if it had been found in appellant’ s pocket, but even then it would be only

marg inally

rele vant. The c ult of S anta Muerte seems to be derived from the religious pra ctices of

the indige nous pre- Columbi an peoples, such as May as and Aztecs, and is one of the fastest g rowing

relig ions in the world, estimated to have from 3 to 12 milli on adher ents. She is the s ec o n d m o s t

popular saint in Mexi co, afte r Saint J ude. The cult first beca me well known in 1998, when Mexi can

police ar rested a notorious criminal and found a shrine to Santa Muer

te in his home

. This le d to a

folk “wisdom” that Santa M uerte is the patron saint of criminals. Today in Mex ico City , there are

a number of public shrines to Santa Mue rte. See
, La Santa Muerte, s kele ton saint popul ar among

those in drug trade, gaining popularity i n U. S

. , N E W 

## Y O R K 

## D A I L Y 

## N E W S 

## (Mar

. 4, 2013),

http:// ny daily

news.c om/news /n a

tional/la-santa- muerta- skeleton-sa int-popular-dr ug -trade -g aining

popularity -u-s-a

rticle-1.1278774.

To say that appellant is a drug traff icker beca use his wife was car

ry ing a Santa Muerte char m

is simil ar to say ing that a person who i s carry ing a m edal depicting Saint J ude, the patron saint of

desper ate c ases a

nd lost causes, must be terminally ill or that a person c arr

y ing a dried four -lea fed

clover must be I rish.

9.

t h e h u m a n

— p e o p l e w h o h u m a n s m u g g l e o r d r u g t r a f f i c

. 2 R

. R

. 7 5

- 7 6

.

Q

. A n d w h e n

— d i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o n o t i c e a n y t h i n g t h a t w a s i n M a r i a G u e r r e r o ’ s p u r s e t h a t w a s

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ? A

. [ T r o o p e r G a r c í a ] Y e s , s h e h a d a l o t o f s a i n t s t h a t p e o p l e I g u e s s b e l i e v e i n , s o m e f o r n a r c o t i c s t r a f

f i c k i n g ,
s o m e f o r m o n e y , s o m e t o g e t t h e m f r o m p o i n t A t o p o i n t B
, s o m e t h i n g t h a t ’ s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g ,
a n d i t w a s i n h e r p u r s e

. 2 R

. R

. 1 2 7

- 2 8

.

## 7

The “her bs” found i n appellant’ s vehicle wer e fre shly cut branc hes with leave s and could

have be en ea sily

identified by

a botanist, but the plants wer e neve r identified a nd could have been

any thing from poison ivy to dill to squash leave s to y oung leave s from any n u m b er o f co m mon

plants. Nothing in the rec ord reve als what plant they wer e from, and there fore the witnesses could

not acc urate ly testify that the herbs wer e used for g ood luck, only that the plant materia l was in the

vehicle. The testimony of the troopers ref lects their appar ent b el i ef t h at an y plant materia l in a 1 0



## vehicle is a

relig ious sy

mbol used exclusively

by criminals.

10-12.

I t is rec ited in three separ ate “cir cumstance s” that the tire was too clea n, there was lubricant

on the rim, and that the tool marks indicated that the tire-r etention mecha nism had b ee n l o we re d

Q

. W h a t t y p e o f p l a n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e g o o d l u c k s y m b o l ? 1 0

A

. [ T r o o p e r P r a d o ] I t ’ s l i k e

- - n a m e o f i t i s

- - I h a v e i t

- - I ’ m n o t e n t i r e l y s u r e w h a t t h e n a m e o f t h e p l a n t i s

. W e

s a w p i c t u r e s o f i t , a n d y o u c a n r e l a t e t h e p i c t u r e s

. B u t a s f a r a s n a m e s , I w o u l d n ’ t b e a b l e t o t e l l y o u

n a m e s

. Q

. S o f r o m a p i c t u r e a n d a o n e

- w e e k t r a i n i n g c o u r s e y o u ’ r e t e s t i f y i n g t h a t ’ s t h e s a m e t y p e o f s y m b o l i c p l a n t i n t h i s c a s e ? A

. Y e s , m a ’ a m

. Q

. B u t y o u d o n ’ t k n o w t h e n a m e o f i t ? A

. N o , m a ’ a m

. Q

. A n d t h a t ’ s y o u r t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h a t p l a n t l o o k e d f r e s h t o y o u ? A

. F r e s h l y c u t , d r y i n g o u t

. Q

. H o w d o y o u k n o w i t w a s f r e s h l y c u t ? A

. B e c a u s e i t w a s n ’ t d e a d y e t

. I m e a n , I ’ m n o t a g a r d e n e r b u t I k n o w a d e a d p l a n t f r o m a l i v e o n e

. 2 R

. R

. 9 2

- 9 3

.

Q

. A n d w h a t a r e t h e s e b r a n c h e s c a l l e d t h a t y o u c o n s i d e r e d t o b e g o o d l u c k c h a r m s ? A

. [ T r o o p e r G a r c í a ] I d o n ’ t k n o w w h a t t h e y ’ r e c a l l e d

. I h a v e n o i d e a w h a t t h e y ’ r e c a l l e d

. Q

. W h a t t y p e o f t r a i n i n g h a v e y o u h a d t o k n o w t h a t b r a n c h e s a r e a g o o d l u c k c h a r m ? A

. N o t r a i n i n g , j u s t s o m e e x p e r i e n c e

. I t ’ s v e r y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d r u g t r a f f i c k e r s , p e o p l e t h a t a r e r u n n i n g i l l e g a l i m m i g r a n t s

. T h e r e i s a p a t t e r n

. A n d w i t h i n t h e f i v e y e a r s I ’ v e a c c u m u l a t e d s u c h k n o w l e d g e

. T h a t ’ s w h a t I ’ m u s i n g

. Q

. I s i t a l w a y s t h e s a m e t y p e o f p l a n t ? A

. N o , i t ’ s n o t t h e s a m e t y p e o f p l a n t

. Q

. D o y o u k n o w w h a t r e l i g i o n t h a t i s t h a t u s e s t h e p l a n t a s a g o o d l u c k c h a r m ? A

. N o , I d o n ’ t

. 2 R

. R

. 1 3 7

- 3 8

.

## 8

rec ently

. These three “circ umstances” are actua lly only one. The evidence supports a conclusion

that the t ire had rec ently been attache d to the vehicle. A t ire t h at h ad been washed or was new or

rec apped would be clean, it would have lubricant on it beca use i t woul d have been put on the rim

rec ently

, and one cannot store a tire on the underside of a vehicle without lowering (and raising ) the

rete ntion mechanism.

The rele vant information about the tire is that it is m u ch o l d er t h an the model y ear of the

vehicle, making it unlikely that it was a repla ceme nt for an orig inal tire that had been damag ed.

Also, the tires on the vehicle are 16 inches in diameter

, while the suspect tire is 17 inches in diameter

and would not have b ee n useful in case of a flat. This is perha ps the only evidenc e that

unequivoca lly

points to i lleg al ac tivity

.

Not mentioned in the Court’s opinion is Trooper Gar cía’ s testimony that he had previously

encounte red a

ppellant in L ive Oak County

.
Q. Prior to Aug ust 24th, 2013 had y ou seen G enar o Acosta in that same vehicle? A. Yes, sir. Q. Approximately

when did y ou see Mr . Acosta dr iving that sa me vehicle ? A. I believe it wa s three months prior to this stop. 2 R.R. 124.

That circ umstance could be signific ant and rele vant, or not, depending on wher e appellant lived and

wher e in L ive Oak County Trooper Gar cía sa w him.

I n sum, the cumulativ e we i ght of the evidenc e may be sufficie nt to support appellant’ s

conviction, but the trial testimony was fra ug ht with both assumptions that wer e based mo re o n

persona l be lief rathe r than fac tual information and omissions of rele vant information, such as how

appellant’ s employ

ment status was verified and the apparent lack of i nvestig ation of t he owner of

the vehicle. I f this Court is g oing to aff irm a conviction, its opinion should set out solid fac tual and

## 9

leg al base s for doingso and be suf ficiently detailed to support those ba ses.

I concur in the judgme nt of the Court.

Filed: Nove mber 23, 2016 Do not publish