CAUSE NOS. 13-14-00123-CR 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT AT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

*******************************************

RAUL LARA, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
******************************************* 

### APPEAL OF CAUSE NO. CR-4394-12-E FROM THE 275 DISTRICT COURT TH OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS HONORABLE JUAN PARTIDA, PRESIDING
*******************************************

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
*******************************************


### Rolando Garza 310 W. University Edinburg, TX 78539 

### Bus: (956) 318-1102 Fax: (956) 381-5005 Counsel for Appellant ACCEPTED 13-14-00123-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 6/19/2015 1:55:32 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER

CLERKCAU SE NO . 13-14-00123 -CR 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS F OR THE THIRTEENTH DI STRI CT ATCO RPUS C HR

ISTI, TE XAS RAUL LARA, APPELLANT V. THE STAT E OF TEXA S, APPELLEE

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

### The u nd ersi gn ed att or

ney su bmits th at th e lis te d i nd iv id ual s are p arti es and /o r co un sel t o t

he in st ant case: (1 ) T he A

ppe lla nt i n th is c as e is R au l L ar a; 

### (2) Appell ant i s repre sente d on appea l by Rola ndo Garz a, 310 W. Uni ve rs it y , E di nburg, T e xa s 78 539; (3) Appellant wa s represented in the lower court by O. Rene Flores, 13 08 S. 10 A ve . , E din

bur g, T ex as 785 39 a

nd J udi th P ena-M or al es, 120 S
. 12 th th St re et , E din bur g, T ex as , 785 39; 

### (4) Appell eeis the Stat e of Tex as r epre sente d by the Hida lgo County Dis tr ict At

to rn eys of fi ce. (5) App el l ee is repre sente d on appea l by The odore C. Ha ke, 100 N. C lo sne r, E di nburg, T e xa s 78 539. (6) A ppe ll e e w a s r e pre se nt e d i n t he lo w e r c our

t b y A ss is ta nt H id a lg o County Di s tric t Att orney s Bobby L opez a nd Hea ther Ree ve, 100 N. C lo sne r, E di nburg, T e xa s 78 539. Re spe ct fu lly

S ubmitt ed , /s/Rolando Ga

rza Rolando Garza1 TABLE OF CONTEN TS INDEX OF AUT HORITIES .........
....... ............. ...... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..2 NOTE REGA RDING FORM OF CITATION TO RECORD ....
....... ....... ....... ..........3 STATEMENT OF TH E CASE .....
....... ....... ..................... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....4 ISSUES PR ESENTED
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS .....
....... ....... .................. ...... ...... .............................5 SU MM A RY

O F A RGU ME

N T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ISSUE PRESENTED W ITH ACCOMPANYING ARGUMENT ON SAME PAGE (1 ) T he j ur

y c ha rg e co nta ins e gr eg iou s e rr or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 (2 ) T he tr ia l c our

t r ev er sib ly

e rr ed in not sup pr es sin g th e sta

te m ent; ho wev er, al th ou gh reque st ed , fin di ng s o f factan d c on cl us io ns of l aw have not be en e nte re d.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. 4 C E RT IF IC A T IO N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CE RT IF IC A T E O F SE RV IC E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 INDEX OF AUT HORITIES CASES A lm anza v. Sta te , 686 S. W
. 2d 1 57 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 198 4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 H er ron v. Sta te , 86 S. W
. 3d 6 21 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 200 2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 M cI nto sh v

. Sta te , 297 S
. W
. 3d 5 36 (Tex . Ap p.— Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 09 , pet. ref' d )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 H er ron v. Sta te , 86 S
. W
. 3d 6 21 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 200 2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 M ira nda v. A riz ona , 384 U
. S. 436 , 86 S
. Ct
. 1602 (1 966)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 M iss ouri v. Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S. 600 , 604 , 124 S
. Ct
. 260 1 ( 2004 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Ng o v . Sta te , 175 S
. W
. 3d 7 38 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 200 5)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Saun de rs v . Sta te , 817 S
. W
. 2d 6 88 ( T ex . Crim
. A pp. 199 1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Sm ith v . Sta te , 332 S
. W
. 3d 4 25 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 201 1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17 State v. Owen , 201 4 T ex . A pp. L E X IS 568 0, (T ex. A pp. Corpus Christi May 29, 2014)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 26 V asqu ez v. Sta te , 411 S
. W
. 3d 9 18 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 201 3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

NO TE RE GA RDI

NG FO RM O F CI TA TI ON

TO RE COR

D Re v i ew o f th e ap p el l at e re co rd i n d i ca t es th at i t i s co m p o s ed o f a o n e v o l u me
c l e rk ' s r e c o r da n dap p r o x i mat e l y t w e l v e v o l u mes o f r e p o rt e r ' s r e c o r d
. I n th e int er es t of c la ri ty a nd b re vit y , the volum es w illbe r ef

er re d to in thi s brie f as f

oll ow s: TITLE DESIGNATION Clerk' s Record .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................... .. .. .. ..... “ CR” Reporter' s Record.
.. .. ........... .. .............. .. .. .. .... by date, page num

bers D e s i g n a t i o n s wi l l b e p r e c e d e d

b y a v o l u me n u mb e r o r d a

t e a n d f o l l o w e d b y a page num ber. Exhibits will be ref

erre d to by

exhibit n um ber.4 ST AT EME

NTOF TH E C AS E R a u l L a r a w a s i n d i c t e d w i t

h o n e c o u nt o f m u r d e r . ( C R
- 1 ) Ra

ul w as f ound guilty by a j ury as charge d i n th e in dictm ent. ( CR-261) O n Dec em ber 19, 2013 the jury
se nte nc ed Ra ul to fif ty -f ive y ea rs in the In sti tut ion alD ivi sio n of theT ex as D ep ar

tmen t of Crim inal Just ice. (CR -262-266 ) A ti m el y not ic e of a ppe alw as f

ile d on Ja nua ry 9, 201 4. ( CR -2 79) de ci sio n

ISSUES PRESENTED (1) T he j ury

charge c ontains egregious error. (2) T he trial court re versibly err ed in not su

ppr es s i n g the statem ent; however, al tho ugh re que ste d, f

ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of la

w ha ve not be en en

te re d. T he ap pe al m us t b e ab at ed

for fin di ng s o f fact

an d c on cl us io ns of l aw.5 STATEMENT OF FACTS A nto nio N av ar

ro , te sti fi ed

tha t he w as ha

ngi ng o ut a

t a f ri en ds h ousea cross the street from

wher e he lived; that there w ere quite a fe w p eople present; that they we re out sid e in a

va ca nt l ot; tha t he he ard a

n a rg um en t; tha

t t w o gi rl s e nde d up le av ingthe party ; that he wa s standin g by a truck when a van c am e by and stopp ed; that the drivers sid e w in do w wa s fac inghim ; t ha t t he ba ck sid e door

ope ne d; t ha t t he rew as a

y oung ge nt le m an

th ere t al ki ng ; t

hat h is fri en d “ JP ” was res po nd in g; th at JP was as ke d “Are we cool? ”; that JP re spon ded “Ye ah, w e’ re c ool” and took a step back; that som eone then pulled o ut a gun; th at he and others then ran to the front of t h e tru ck ; th at he hear d around eight

shots ; that it was dark and, “ You can’t really see faces”; th at after th e van le ft , he s aw “ Migue l’ s c ar a li ttl e bit mor e dow

n th e str ee t st oppe d” ; t

ha t M igu elgot

“ ca ught in the c ro ss f

ir e” ; a nd tha t he co uld not ide nti fy Ra

ul L ar a as the sho ote r. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 6- 21) Cr y sta l T re vin o te sti fi ed

tha t sh e wa s a lso a

t t he pa rt y ; t ha t Ju lis sa a nd L uc ind a
we re told to leave the party in no ki nd words; that they left w alking; th at a van then
came by that she recognized as the one that would pick up Juliss a and Lucinda at
sc hool ; t ha t sh e thi nks the tw o a

rec ousi ns; tha

t som eo ne f

ro m the va n “ ope ns t he sid e door, an d te lls the pe opl e tha t a rew ith us t ha t t he y be tte r not

be m es sin g w ith

his cousins ”; t h at

she wa s sittin g on th e tailgate of the truck e ven while the shooter6

ap pr oa ch ed

w ith the gun ; t ha t the guy w

ho m ad e the co m

m en t ab out the co usi ns w as the
sa m e pe rs on w ith the gun an d w as al so hol din g a ra g; tha t Ja mika pus he d he r out

of the
w ay ; tha t she en de d up a

t t he f ro nt o f the tr

uc k a lon g w ith

a bun ch of oth er pe opl e; a nd tha t sh e co uld

not ide nti fy the sho ote r. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 24- 35) A lva ro G ue rr a te sti fi ed

tha t hew as at

thepa rt y ; t ha t, a s t o th e shoo tin g, “ W

he n I saw him pull o u t th e p i s t o l , I noticed ho w JP rea cted to it. A nd I see him

take a f ew steps b ac k lik e goi ng to ru n. A nd tha t’ s w ha t I he ard tha

t t he m an , the ind ivi dua l, j ust cocked the gun. And w

hen I h eard him

cock the gun, he also threw like a sort of like a tow el or somet hing ove r it. A

nd w he n he did

tha t, tha t’ s w ha t Inot ic ed JP r un” ; a nd tha t a t no ti m e did

he ide nti fy

Ra ul L ar a as the sho ote r. ( 12- 11- 13, pp. 48- 55) Ja mika D unc an te sti fi ed tha t sh e w as a

t t he pa rt y ; th at she sa w the va n pu ll up; tha t sh e tho ught

somet hin g w as goi ng t o h ap pe n; th at she he ard a

guy “ sa y ingli ke to le av e the ir

c ousi n a lon e” ; t

ha t t he f ir st s hot w en

t of f w he n she w as w al kin g a

ro und the tr uc k; t ha t s he gr ab be d he r be st frie nd a nd j ust tur ne d around ; tha

t she did not ge t a goo d loo k a t t he sho ote r; a

nd t ha t sh e w as tol d by

he r be st frie nd tha

t the shoo te r al so h ad

a
ra g. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 36- 50) Jamika also testified that she texted Ju lissa after that night to find ou t what happened; th at Julissa was blam ing it onLucinda, “ say ing th at she wa s the one m ad, that she ha d to ld ev er

y body li ke to go d o so m et

hin g” ; a nd t ha t L uc ind a w as “

pis se d”7

because sh e g ot kicked out of the party
. (12-13-13, pp. 4 3,48) Jamika also testified that Ju li ssa i nit ia lly

de nie d be ingin the va

n bu t t he n a dm itt ed tha t sh e w as . ( 12- 13- 13, p. 51) A ndr ea G om ez te sti fi ed tha

t s he w as a

t t he pa rt y ; t ha t s he w as drink ingbe er

a nd
smoki ng; tha

t e ve ry body w as smoki ng a

t t he pa rt y ; t ha t sh e fi rs t sa

w the va n drive by real slow and that a m ale w as d

riving; th at the van returned and w as driven by Ya ritza; t h a t a f t e r t h e v an g o t t o th e p a

r t y, “Th e s l i d i n g d o o r

wa s o p e n , a

n d we s a w t w o g u ys sit tin g i n s i d e t

h e v a n . A n d o n e o f t

h e g u y s h a d a r e d r a g o n h i s h a n d
. And I
au tomat ic al ly

kne w , li ke , w

ha t i t w as . A

nd I y el le d ou t t ha t he ha d a gun so e ve ry

body
ca n r un” ; tha t tw o guy s w er e se at ed in the midd le se at ; tha t “ JP ” w as tol d “ I don’ t w an t y ou h an gin g a

ro und w ith

m y c ousi ns n o m or e. A ll ri ght
. ”; tha t s he r emem

be re d he aring ab out se ve n sh ots ; t

ha t a Nick Zap at a w as r oll ingm arij ua na in the c ar ne xt t o a w hit e tr uc k; t ha t t he c ar w as f ac inga w ay f ro m th e str ee t; tha

t N ic k w as f

ac ingf or w ard; a nd tha t N ic k w as not a posi tio n to se e w ha t w as in the va

n or w ha t ha ppe ne d. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 52- 65) Ja sm ine V ill eg as te sti fi ed

tha t sh e w as a

t t he pa rt y ; t ha t sh e co uld

not se e the fa ce s of the pe opl e in the va n oth er tha

n Y aritz a, w

ho w as drivi ng on t

he se co nd p as s;
v a c i l l a t e d a s t o w

h e t h e r E r i c At

w o o d a / k / a “ N e g r o ” w a s d

r i v i n g t h e v a n o n the f ir st pa ss; tha t N eg ro w as al w ay s w ith Y aritz a; tha t she w as sur e tha

t N eg ro w as the one w

ho8

sa id “ St op mes sin g w ith

m y co usi ns” ; tha

t w he n she he ard N eg ro spe ak , she sa w a gun , in a r ag , in h is ha

nd; tha t s he r ec ogni ze d hi s vo ic e sin ce , “ T he y w er e m y ride to sc hool , a f t e r s c h o o l e v e r

y d a y” ; t h a t s h e d i d n o t s e e R a

u l L a r a t h a t n i g ht ; a n d t h a t t h e f i r s t t i me she had seen Raul La

ra w as that day

in the courtroom
. (12-13-13, pp. 68-86) Jasmine also recalled a

telephone conversation

she had with Juliss a on speaker phon e in w

hic h Ju lis sa

a dm itt ingins tr

uc tin g to sho ot b ut n ot t o sh oot a t he r frie nds. (1 2- 13- 13, pp. 87- 88) Investigator Ileana Pe na testified that she initially had arre st war

rants for Y aritza Tij erin a and her husband Eric A twood a/k/a “ El N egro”; that surveillance wa s conducted onthe Tij erina residence/ranch; that the T ije rina fam ily consisted o f Y aritza, Luc ind a, Jul iss a, a

nd Eri c Atw ood; tha

t w he n the inv es tig at or s ar

ri ve d at the ra

nc h, E ri c Atw ood h ad fled; that Jasmine, w ho was at the par

ty and knew Eric Atw ood, identified him a s t he sho ote r; tha

t L uc ind a le d he r to b el ie ve tha t J orge Ca ba lle ro /G eo rg e w as the shoo ter; that in her af

fidavit, Lucinda did

not m ention Raul Lara ; and that Raul La ra w as
ne ve r ide nti fi ed

in a phot o li ne -u

p. ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 126 -1 36) Investigator Eduardo Ru iz testified that he took a statem ent from partygoer N ic hol as Z ap at a an d th at

he c oul d ne ith er

pr ovi de a na

m e fo r the sho ote r nor

c oul d he giv e a good

de sc ripti on o f the sho ote r. ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 187 -1 88)9

Nicholas Z apata said that he wa s at t he party ; that he wa s sm okin g m arij uana; that the girls tha

t ca m e to the pa

rt y br ough t the m arij ua

na ; tha t a va n pul le d up; tha

t the y got of f an d st ar te d ta lki ng t o JP ; t

ha t hew as si tti ng i n a

c ar w ith his le g ha lf

w ay out ; tha

t he
w as loo kin g ba ck ; t

ha t hec oul d se e tow ards the va n but not ins ide the va

n; t ha t hedid not recognize any one from the van; that he saw one person get out of the van and start shoo ting; that “As soon as I saw the gun, I j ust ducked down”; that he later saw police reports with pictures of people wh o had been arr ested; and claim ed that he then
re co gni ze d R au l L ar a as the sho ote r. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 92- 105) Nicolas then testified that when he f irst spok e to the police, he did not giv e m uch of a descriptio n of the shoo ter since he was in shock and high from sm okin g we ed; that al l he tol d the pol ic e w as tha t the shoo te r ha d a goa

te e an d w hit e ca p; tha t it w as da rk ; that when the shootin g started, he had a lready sm oked weed; th at he wa s in the car lis te ni ng to m

usi c; the n c la imed

tha t w he n th e va

n pu lle d up , “ I tur

ne d a ro und an d stepped out”; that “You can’ t give a description o f a f ace” ; that “ I re cognized his fac e as
soon as I saw it on the news”; that “when they arre sted him , they asked m e if that w as him
. A nd I sa id y es ”; tha

t he sa w Ra ul L ar a on t

he ne w s a nd i n th e ne w spa

pe r; tha t he knew that Raul had been fingere d as the shoo ter; agreed that som ebody needed to pay fo r thi s shoot ing ; and tha

t he wa s neve r show

n a pho to l ine -u

p w ith Ra ul L ar a in i t. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 106 -1 26)10

Ro ge lio T or

re s te sti fi ed

tha t hew as smoki ng marij ua na be fo re the va

n a rrive d; tha t he di d no t r e c og ni z e t

he va n; t ha t so m e on e st a

r t e d sa y i ng so m e t

hi ng to JP; that when he heard the gun being cocked, he ran to the back of the truck; that from the van he he ard on e voi ce ; t

ha t t he sho ote r ha d a

whi te sh irt, c ap , goa

te e, a nd t at too s on his
arm s; that “ It w as dark. I couldn’ t see his face
. Te chnically , Icouldn’t see his face”; tha t he w as ne ve r giv en

a pho to l ine -u

p to loo k at ; t

ha t he w as sho w

n pi ct ur es in the fu tur e; tha t t he pol ic e tol d hi m w

ho w as thesho ote r; a

nd r es pond ed

in the a ff ir m at ive
w he n a ske d “Y ou w er e tol d th is p er sonis the sho ote r? I s th is h im ?”. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 133- 152) R oge lio w as not a ske d to do an in cour

t ide nti fi ca

tio n of Ra ul L ar a as be ing the sho ote r. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 133 -1 53) C hr i s t i a n Z a p a t a s a i d th at t

h e d e c e a s e d

w a s h i s b r o t

h e r - i n - l a w ; t h a t a g u y c a me out of the van and st arted arguing w ith JP to “ stop chil ling with his cousin”; that he had not se en him be fo re ; t ha t hew as w ea

ri ng a bla ck ca

p, w ith a w

hit e te e, an d blu e j ea

ns; that he had a white tow el w rapped around a gun; that when the shoo ting started he ran to the back o f his m om ’ s hous e; that the shoot er w as skinny , in his 20's, w ith a goatee and tattoos ; that as to the middle seat of the van, he c ould only see shadows; that he w as not sho w n R au l L ar a in a p ho to li ne -u p; t ha t hesa w ne w s r ep or

ts; tha t he did not
r e me mb e r i f h e s a w t h e s h o o t e r

i n t h e f i r s t r e p o r t s ; th at a p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s h o w e d h i m a newspaper w ith Raul Lar a’ s picture in it; that the po lice told him which people had been11

ar re ste d; t ha t he the n r ec ogni ze d R au l L ar a as the s hoote r; tha t t he sa m e pe rs on w

ho
w as hol din g th e tow elw oul d be the sa m e pe rs on w

ho h ad the gun ; a nd t ha t Ra ul “ loo ks lik e” the sa

m e guy tha

t ca m e out of the va

n. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 153 -1 70) H e w as a lso not asked to m ake an in court identification of Raul La ra a s being th e shooter. Iv an L ope z te sti fi ed

tha t t he de ce as ed

w as his be st f

ri en d; t ha t hedid not ge t a good loo k a t t he sho ote r; that “ it was too da rk f or m e re al ly

to poi nt h im

out specifically ”; t

hat the shoo ter had a short fa ce, short hair, dar k com plected/caramel like,
an d “ lik e a goa

te e” ; a nd t ha t hec oul d no t i de nti fy

Ra ul L ar a as the sho ote r ev en tho ugh he w as in the de ce as ed ’ s ve hic le w ith the he ad li ght s on . ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 173 -1 86) Ma rt in Z ap at a te sti fi ed tha

t only one pe rs on ca

m e out of the va

n; t ha t hedid not know w ho i t w as ; e ve ntu al ly ad

mitt ed tha t wh en he fi rs t spoke w ith the pol ic e tha t t he onl y de sc ripti on h e ga

ve of the sho ote r was tha

t he w ea ri ng a w hit e T -s hir

t a nd b lue j ea ns; tha t a ft er se ei ng n ew s r ep or

ts, he ad de d to his de sc ripti on o f thesho ote r as be ing in h is 2 0' s, a

bla ck c ap , ta tto os o n hi s a

rm , an d a goa

te e; tha t a ft er se ei ng n ew s r ep or

ts, he r ec ogni ze d R au l L ar a as the sho ote r; tha t E din burg P oli ce Depa rtment

“ show ed us pic tur es . Bu

t t he y w er en ’ t t he li ne -u p. A nd i t w as n’ t t

he m . S o Iide nti fi ed

him on t he newspaper. T hey

had a picture of him”; and that today , he added that the shooter w as ski nny a nd y oung . ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 188 -2 05)12

Ju an Pablo S osa , Jr
. , sa id t ha t hew as a lso kno w

a s “ JP ”; tha

t he w as smoki ng
m arij uana on the nig ht in questio n; that he wa s the closest person to van; that the back door sl id o pe n; t

ha t “ the one tha

t’ s in fro nt of us, he tol d us not - - to s top c hil lin g w ith his cous ins”; that there wa s another voice coming from th e van; that som eone handed th e s h ooter a w eapon; that the weapon is wra pped in a white towel; that he couldn’t
re al ly se e the w ea

pon; tha t he too k a

c oupl e of ste ps bac k and ra

n tow ards the front

of the truck; that he heard shots ; that he did not look back; that he had not seen the sho oter before; that he later

saw news covera ge of Raul L ara being arrested; that he rec ogni zed him in the ne w spa

pe r; tha t he ha d no r ea son as to w hy he w ai te d thr ee w ee ks t o go te ll the pol ic e; tha

t on the nig ht of the shoo tin g he told the pol ic e tha t t he sho ote r ha d a

li ttl e
m ustache; that there w as a diffe rence betwee n a m ustache and a goatee; and that
smoki ng marij ua

na ha s no a ff

ec t on him
. ( 12- 13- 13, pp. 214 -2 40) In ve sti ga tor A rn old o I zq

uie rd o te sti fi ed

tha t i n hi s r ep or

t he n ot ed that JP S osa
wa s shown two photo line-ups, one of L ittle Bear , L eonardo Moreno, and of Ra ul Lar a; th at J P So s a w as unable to ident ify any one from

the line-ups; and th at today he w as
sa y ingtha t R au l L ar a w as not

in the li ne -u

ps. ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 244 -2 45) Stevie Ray

Aguilar testified that he w as as at the “ get together”; that a van passed by a nd t he n r et ur ne d; t ha t on e of theind ivi dua ls in t

he va n sa id “ somet

hin g that do n ot be m es sin g w ith

m y pr im a”; th at

he he ard “the ind ivi dua l, j ust c oc ke d th e gun. A

nd13

w he n Ihe ard hi m

c oc k the gun, he al so thr ew lik e a sor t of l ike li ttl e tow elor

somet hin g
ove r it” ; t ha t t he y w er e unde r a co upl e of

la m ps s o th er e w as goo d li ght ingc ondi tio ns
an d c oul d se e pr et

ty goo d; t ha t pe opl e sc at

te re d; t ha t t he sho oti ng b eg an ; a

nd t ha t a t no time ha d he ide nti fi ed

Ra ul L ar a as the sho ote r. ( 12- 11- 13, pp. 38- 55) Of ficer Joseph Anthony Lucio testified that he responded to a call for shots fired in the present case; that he did field i nterviews; th at t here w as no one at the location th at
nam ed Raul L ara as the shoo ter; and that no one gave him a description of the shoo ter. (1 2- 11- 13, pp. 67- 76) Investigator D avid V aldez testified that he recovere d a towel from the s u s p ect
ve hic le /va n; t ha t he f ound it be tw ee n th e se co nd a

nd t hird r ow se at s; a nd t ha t he subm itt ed the tow elf

or te sti ng. ( 12- 11- 13, pp. 176 -1 79) D oc tor V an es sa N el son, the se ct ion sup er vis or f or the D NA a na ly sis se ct ion

f or the Tex as Departm ent of Public Saf ety Crime L ab in W eslaco, testified that a towel from the pr es en

t mat te r w as sub mitt ed

to he r fo r D NA an al y sis ; tha t t he D NA f ound on the tow elw as c om

pa re d to kno w

n sa liv a sa

m ple s f ro m Raul Lara, J

r. , L eo na rd o Moreno, Eric Atw ood, and Martin Tij erina, Jr. ; and she was able to exclude Ra ul Lar a, Jr . , L e o n a r d o M o r e n o , a

n d M a r t i n T i j e r i n a , J r . ; a n d t h a t t h e D NA o n t h e t o w e l c a

me ba ck to “ E ri c Atw ood, an d a mixt ur e of someb ody el se . Bu

t as f ar a s L ar a, Mo re no a

nd T ij erina , it

is not the ir D NA on t he re . ” ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 37- 50)14 SUMM ARY OF ARGUMENT T he j ur y c ha rg e co nta ins eg reg io us e rror sin ce thej ur

y w as ins tr uc te d to pa ss over the issue of whether two k ey witnesses were accom plices as a m atter of f

act w hen th ey were ac co m

pl ic es as a

m at te r of law. The tri al co urt reversibly

err ed in not su

ppressing Raul statem ents since it was
o b ta in ed in vi ol at io n o f Cri min al Pro ced ur e Art ic le 38 .22 , M

i r a n d a v . A riz ona , M iss ouri v s. Se ibe rt , the F ifth Amendm ent to the United States Constituti on, and wa s obt ai ne d in

vio la tio n of c onst itu tio na l righ

ts t o ha ve a kno w ing ly , int el lig en

tly a nd volunt ar y sta te m en t. At th e trial l ev elde fe nse c ouns elr eq ue ste d f ind ing s of f ac t a nd conclusio ns of law; howe ver, no such entry is in the clerks recor d. I n this circum stance, the a ppe alm ust be aba te d f

or f ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w f or m ea nin gf ul brie fi ng.15 FIRS T ISSUE PRESENTED The j ury charge c ontains egregious error. ARGUMENT AND AU THORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

THE FIRST ISSUE PRESENTED T he j ur y w as ins tr uc te d a s f oll ow s: U pon the la w of a cc om pli ce w itn es s te sti m ony , y ou a reins tru ct ed tha

t a pe rs on w ho h as pa rt ic ipa te d wi th som eo ne el se be fo re , during or a ft er the co m miss ion of a crime is an ac co m pli ce w itn es s. In

suc h c as es , the rem

ust be some ev ide nc e of an

a ff ir m at ivea ct

on t he w itn es s’ pa

rt to as sis t i n co m miss ion of the of fe nse . I f th e wit

ne ss c an not be pr ose cu

te d f or the offense wi th wh ich the accused is charged, then the witness is not an accom pli ce witn ess as a matter of la w. A witness is not an accom plice w itn es s mer el y

be ca use he or she kne w

of the of fe nse a nd d id n ot d isc los e i t , o r e v e n c o n c e a l e d i t
. T h e w i t

n e s s ’s p r e s e n c e a

t t h e s c e n e o f

t h e c r i me do es no t re nd er t

hat wi tn es s anacco m

pl ic e wit ne ss . Now , if y ou find f

ro m the evidence that Lucinda Tij erina w as an ac co m pli ce , then y oua

ref ur the r ins tr uc te d th at y ou c an not c onvi ct the De fendant upon

Lucinda T ije rina’ s testim ony , unless y ou first believe that he r te stim on y is true a

nd s how s t

he gui lt of

theD ef en da nt a s c ha rg ed in the ind ic tmen

t, an d then y ou ca

nnot co nvi ct the D ef

en da nt u nle ss L uc ind a Tij erina’ s testim ony

is corroborated by

other evidence tending to connect the D ef en da nt w ith the of fe nse c ha rg ed
. Now if y ou find from

the evidence that Juliss a Tije rina w as an acc om plice, the n y ou a ref ur the r ins tr uc te d th at y ou ca

nnot co nvi ct the D ef

en da nt u pon Jul iss a T ij erina ’ s tes ti m ony , unl es s y ou f ir st b el ie ve tha

t he r te sti m ony

is tr ue a nd show s the guil t of the D ef en da nt a s c ha rg ed in the ind ic tmen

t, a nd the n y ou c an

not c onvi ct the D ef

en da nt unle ss Juli ssa T ij erina ’ s t es timony is c or ro bor at ed by oth er evide nc e te ndi ng t o c onne ct theD ef en da nt w ith the of fe nse c ha rg ed
.16

T he co rrobor at ion of an ac co m pli ce w itn es se s’ te sti m ony is not suf fi ci en t if it m er el y sho w s th e co m

miss ion of a n of fe nse , but it m ust te nd t o co nne ct theD ef en da nt w ith it s com miss ion , a

nd t he n f ro m a ll the ev ide nc e, y ou m

ust be lie ve be y ond a re as ona ble dou bt t ha t t he D ef en da nt is guil ty of the of fe nse c ha rg ed a ga ins t h im , o r if y ou h av e a re as ona ble do ub t t he reo f, y ou

wil l ac qu it

th e d efen da

nt
. Y ou a ref ur the r ins tr uc te d th at

one or m or e ac co m

pli ce s c an

not co rrobor at e ea ch

oth er . S uc h c or

ro bor at ive e vid en ce , if

a ny , m ust be f ro m some source oth er tha

n sa id a cc om

pli ce s, Luc ind a T ij erina

a nd J uli ssa T ij erina , or

e ith er of the m , a s he re in c ha

rg ed
. (C R- 254- 256) The j ury wa s instructed to determ

ine if Lucinda and/or Julissa we re a ccom plices
as a m at te r of f ac t versu s be ingins tr

uc te d th at bot h or e ith er w er e an a cc om pli ce a s a
m at te r of law. The L egislature has determ ined that the factf

inder shou ld exercise caution when considering the testim ony of an accom plice; "accom

plices often have incentives to lie, such as to avoid

punis hm ent or shift blam e to another person." Sm ith v . Sta te , 332 S.W .3d 42 5, 4 39 (Tex .Cri m .App . 20 11 ). A tria l c our t m ust ins tr uc t a j ur y by "a w ri tte n c ha rg e dis tin ct ly

se tti ng f or th t he la w a ppl ic ab le to the c ase." Tex . Code Crim
. P ro c. A nn. a rt
. 36. 14; see M

cIntosh v. Sta te , 2 97 S.W .3d

53 6, 5 42 (Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 st Dis t.] 20 09 , pet. ref'

d ). In
an al yz i n g a

jury ch arg e is su e, it

is fir st de te rmin ed

whet he r erro r ex is ts
. Ng

o v . Sta te , 175 S. W
. 3d 7 38, 743 ( T ex . Crim
. A pp. 200 5)
. If er

ro r is f ound , a n a ppe lla te c our t w ill17

th en an al y

ze th e erro r fo r harm . Id
. T he de gr ee of ha rm ne ce ssa ry f or r ev er sa l depe nds
on whet he r th e d efen da

nt pre se rv ed th e erro r by ob

jecti on . Id
. Re ve rs alis r eq uir ed f or a j ur y c ha r ge e r r or w he n t he de f e nd a nt ha s prop e r l y ob

j e c t e d t o t

he c ha r ge and an ap pe ll at e co ur

t fi nd s " so m e h arm" t o h i s r i gh ts
. Id . ( ci tin g A lm anza v . Sta te , 686 S. W .2d 157, 171 (T ex.Crim .A pp. 1984)). W

hen the defendant fails to object, or states tha t he ha s no obj ec tio n to a

c ha rg e, a n a ppe lla te c our t w illnot r ev er se f or c ha rg e er ro r
un le ss th e reco rd sh ows "eg reg io us ha rm " t o t he de fen da

nt
. Id
. at 743- 44. T hus, c ha rg e
er ro r is r ev ie w ed

by c onsi de ri ng w

he the r (1 ) erro r ex is ts i n th e ch arge a nd ( 2) if so, whe th er s uf

fic ie nt ha rm res ul te d fr om

th e erro r to req

ui re rev ers al
. Id
. a

t 74 4. A n a cc om pli ce i s a pe rs on w

ho p ar tic ipa te s be fo re , during , or

a ft er the
co m mis si on of a n o ffen se , wit

h th e req ui si te cu lp ab le m enta l s tate
. Sm ith v . Sta te , 332 S. W
. 3d 4 25, 439 ( T ex . Crim
. A pp. 201 1)
. P re se nc e at a crime sc en e al one doe s no t mak e a person an acc om

plice; rather, an acc om

plice m ust have engaged in an affirmative act th at pr om ot es th e co m

mis si on of th e of

fen se th at th e acc us ed

co m mitte d. Id
. A

w itn es s
m ay be co ns id e r e d an a c c o mp l i c e as a m at te r of fact or a s a m at

te r of law. Id
. I f the evidence is conflicting as to w hether a witness is an accom plice, then the trial c ourt m ay in st ru ct th e jury to d et e r

mi n e th e w it

ne ss 's s tatu s as a fact

is su e. Id . a

t 439-40
. W

hen the evidence clearly

shows that a w itness is an accom plice as a matter of law, however, th e co ur t m us t i ns tru ct

th e jury acco rd in gl y . Id
. a t 43 9.18

"A w itness who is ind icted for the same offe ns e o r a l es ser-included offense as the accused is an acc om

pli ce as a matter of la

w. " Id
. I f the S ta

te dis miss es the ind i c t m e nt be f or e t he w i t ne ss t e st i f

i e s, t he w i t ne ss i s no l on ge r de e m e d t o be an
ac co m pli ce as a m at

te r of law. Id
. "A w itness cont inues to b e re garded as an
ac co m pli ce , how ev er , if the w itn es s ag re es to t es tif y a ga ins t t he a cc use d in

e xc ha nge f or the dismissal of the charge. " Id
. "[ T ] he om

iss ion of a n a cc om pl ic e witne ss i nst

ru ct ion is ge ne ra lly

ha rm le ss unless corroborating (non-accom plice) evid ence is 'so un convin cing in fact as to render th e St at e's ov eral l ca se for

co nv ic ti on

cle arl y an d si gn ifi can tl y le ss pe rs ua si ve .' " H er ron
v. Sta te , 86 S .W .3d 621, 632 (T ex.Crim .A pp. 2002 ) ( qu ot in g Saunde rs v . Sta te , 817 S. W .2d 688, 689 (Te x.Crim .A pp. 1991)). As noted prev i o u s l y, Jasm ine testified about a telephon e conversation she had
w ith Jul iss a in w

hic h Ju lis sa

a dm itt ingins tr

uc tin g to sho ot. (1 2-13- 13, pp. 87- 88) Julis sa T ije rina w as repre sented by attorney Rubio Salinas. ( 12-16-13 , p. 7) Prior to te sti fying , the St at e put on the re co rd tha t Jul iss a w as of

fe re d im m uni ty in e xc hang e fo r he r te sti m ony “re ga rd ingthe m

ur de r tha t ha ppe ne d O ct obe r 5, 201 2, and her alleged involv em en t in that m urder and any

other involv em ent that she m ay have had in the aftermath of the m urder re lated to that m

urder. ” (12-16-13, p. 25-26)19

Regarding the shoo ting, Juliss a said that when the van stopped, Le onardo a/k/a/ Lit tleBe ar ope ne d th e sli din g do or ; t ha t L eo na rd o to ld t he pe opl e at

the pa rt y to “not ha ng o ut w ith us” ; tha

t Ra ul did not te ll the pe opl e an y thi ng; tha t “ Ra ul j ust sti ck s on e leg out and st arts shoo ting”; that Le onardo then “ sticks out a gun and starts sho oting ”; that she heard ten or eleven shots; that th ey close the door to the van and leave fast; that Ra ul s ai d th e shoo tin g w as f

un a nd l ooke d ha

ppy ; tha t Ra ul s ai d he ha d tw o bu lle ts le ft ; that Raul and Le onardo picked up the bu llet casings that were in the van; that Yaritza tol d he r to tel l the pol ic e tha t the shoo te r w as someo ne na m ed G eo rg e; tha

t s he did not do so; that she wa s arre sted a nd taken into custody for these charges; and that she was of fe re d im m uni ty in the pr es en

t m ur de r. ( 12- 16- 13, p. 100 -1 12) D uringa he aringin the pr es en

t mat te r, the S ta

te not ed a li st o f co -d ef

en da nts to inc lud e E ri c Atw ood, Luc ind a T ij erina , L eo na rd o M or en o, a

nd M ar tin T ij erina
. ( 12- 16- 13, p. 12) Luc ind a T ij erina w as r ep re se nte d by

a tto rn ey A bie l F lor es . ( 12- 16- 13, p. 8) Du ri ng cross-examination , L ucinda testified that bo th she and her cousin Juliss a had been arr ested on m

urder charges. ( 12-16-13 , p. 79) Lucinda testified that Y aritza Tij erina w as her sister; that Martin Tij erina wa s her b r o t h e r ; t h a t Y a r i t z a w a s m a r r i e d t o E r i c At

w o o d a / k / a “ N e g r o ” ; t h a t J u l i s s a T i j e r i na
w as he r co usi n; t

ha t sh e kne w

L eo na rd o M or en o a

/k /a “ L itt le Be ar” fo r ab out f our y ea rs ; a nd t ha t sh e kne w

Ra ul L au ra sin ce she w as li ttl e. ( 12- 16- 13, pp. 36- 39)20

Lucinda further

testified that on the nigh t in questio n, sh e w as sm okin g wee d at her friend’ s Andreas hou s e; th at everyone there w as sm okin g wee d; that she had pr ev iou sly

too k tw o X an ax

pil ls a t sc hool ; t ha t sh e wen t to part

y a lon g w ith

thegirls that wer e at

Andrea s hous e; that she did no t have perm issio n to go to the party ; that the rew er e tw en

ty to thi rt y pe opl e at the pa rt y ; t ha t t he y w er e out si de in a lot ; t

ha t sh e
w as drink ing , smoki ng, a

nd t akingpil ls at

the pa rt y ; tha t the guy s told her to l ea

ve the pa rt y be ca use she w as a

mino r; tha

t she w as una

ble to fi nd a ri de f

ro m someo ne a

t t he pa rt y ; t ha t sh e be ga n w al kin g; t

ha t he r sis te r pic ke d he r an d Julis sa up at a s top sign in
a va n drive n by

E ri c; tha t Ya ri tz a w as in the front pa sse nge r se at ; tha t R au l a nd “ L itt le Be ar” w er e in t

he midd le se at ; t

ha t Raul was be hin d E ri c; tha t L itt le Be ar

w as be hin d Ya ritza; that Mar

tin was in the backseat; that she we nt to sit by the window in the very ba ck se at ; t ha t i nst ea d of he ad ing home, the y w en t by the pa rt y ; t ha t t he y m ad e a U -t

ur n; tha t e ve ry body r emai ne d in

the ir se at s; an d th at the y

the n st oppe d a

t t he pa rt y . ( 12- 16- 13, pp. 39-56) Lucinda then said that Raul opened the door; that Little Bear star ted “telling th em lik e not to ha ng a ro und w ith

us n o mor e” ; t

ha t R au l sa id s om et

hing si m il ar ; t

ha t R au l
an d Li tt le Bear

st art ed sh oo ti ng at t

he same tim e fro m in si de th e va n; th at sh e saw two guns ; that they

both had guns ; that she saw about twenty people running ; that she heard ab out e igh t o r ni ne sh ots; t

ha t t he y dr ove of f; tha t R au l w as te lli ng L itt le Be ar tha t he21

ha dn’ t do ne tha

t i n lo ng t ime; tha

t th ey w en t t o he r m oth er s ho use ; t

ha t R au l, L itt le Bea r, Neg ro , a

nd h er sis te r sta rt ed se arch ingthe va

n; t ha t Y aritz a tol d he r to t el l t

he police that the sho oter w as som eo n e n am ed Ge orge; that she did tell th e police that G eo rg e w as the shoo te r; an d tha t in ex ch an ge fo r he r te sti m ony , the S ta te ha d a gr ee d no t to p ro se cu

te he r fo r an

y thi ng s he m ay ha

ve done in con

ne ct ion w ith thi s m

ur de r. ( 12- 16-13, pp. 55-70) Juvenil es Lucinda and Ju lissa wer e im plicated in inst igating the retaliatory shoo tin g. (1 2- 13- 13, pp. 43, 48) (1 2- 13- 13, pp. 87- 88) T he y w er e bot h sus ceptible to pr ose cu tio n. B oth Luc in da and Ju lis sa w er e ch arge d a

nd a rr es te d w ith

thepr es en

t
mu r d e r . S u b s e q u e n t l y, b o t h we r e g r a nt e d i mm u n i t y i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h e i r t e s t i mo n y. They we re a ccom

plices as a m atter of la

w. T he j ury

shoul d have been charged
ac co rd ing ly
. I nst ea d, the j ur y w as ins tr uc te d to de te rm

ine w he the r Luc ind a an d Ju lis sa
were ac co m

pl ic es as a

m at te r of fact
. T he om iss ion of the c or re ct a cc om pli ce ins tr uc tio n w as e xtr emel y

ha rmfu l a nd
amount ed to egregious error/ the non-accom plice evidence w as s o uncon vincing in fact
as to re nde r the S ta

te ' s o ve ral l c as e fo r co nvi ct ion c le arly a nd s ign if ic an tly le ss pe rs ua si ve . Sau nde rs v . Sta te , 817 S. W .2d 688, 689 (Te x. Crim . A pp. 1991). Fi rs t, the a cc om

pli ce is sue w as he av ily co nte ste d. In cl osi ng argumen t, the S ta te stressed Lucinda’ s and Juli ssa’ s testim ony to fill in the gaps and

further stre sse d that22

they we re not acc om

p l i ces. T he State a

rgued that the State did not hav e to prove that the bullet cam e fr om

More n o ’s g unor L ara’ s gun b ecause L ucinda said bo th wer e shoo tin g ( 12- 17- 13, pp. 28- 29) ; t ha t t he rew as no a ff

ir m at ive a ct

ta ke n by Luc ind a or Jul iss a (1 2- 17- 13, p. 32) ; tha t Jul iss a w as unw av eringa s t o he r ve rs ion of e ve nts , unl ike oth er w itn es se s (1 2- 17- 13, pp. 101) ; an d tha t “ T he onl y pe opl e tha

t ha ve an y pr ote ct ion in the va n we re Luc ind a and Jul iss a. A nd t he y tol d y ou w

ho t he sho ote rs w er e” ( 12- 17- 13, pp. 104-15). The d efense strong ly

stressed to the contrary

by m aking su ch argum ents that blo od w as thi ck er

tha n w at er /th at Luc ind a an d Ju lis sa w er e shie ldi ng t he ir r el at ive s by cl ai mi n g n o n - r e l a

t i v e s w e r e t

h e s h o o t e r s ( 1 2
- 1 7
- 1 3 , p p . 5 1 ) ; t h a t t h e S t a t e w ante d th e j ur y to ign or e the a cc om

pli ce w itn es s in str

uc tio n ( 12- 17 -1 3, pp. 28- 29) ; st re sse d th e princ ipl e tha

t t he j ur y co uld not c onvi ct on a cc om pli ce w itn es s te sti m ony , “

unl es s y ou fi rs t bel ie ve tha

t her e te sti m ony is tr

ue , an d sh ow s hi s gu ilt

a s c ha rg ed in the ind ic tmen

t. And then y ou can cannot conv ict him unless her testim ony

is corroborated by

other
ev ide nc e te ndi ng t o c onne ct him w ith the of

fe nse . T ha

t’ s a lot of hurdle s t o ge t t

hr ough
. And the rea son th ey

wa nt y ou to ig nore it be cause they wa nt y ou to b elieve w

hat they
sa y wit ho ut qu es ti on in g” (12 -1 7- 13 , pp . 64 ). T he j ur y r eq ue ste d to vie w

thest at emen

ts of Jul iss a T ij erina

a nd L uc ind a T ij erina to a ll of the que sti ons as ke d by

thede fe nse a

tto rn ey s. ( 12- 18- 13, pp. 8- 11)23

Jul iss a an d Luc ind a’ s te sti m ony w as the co rn er sto ne of the S ta te ’ s c as e. W ith out tha t t es timony , the St at e w as le ft w ith suc h sc en arios as ha vin g one ve rs us tw o sh oot er s; ha vin g DNA

on a tow el , f ound in th e su spe ct

va n a nd a lle ge dly

use d in thesho oti ng,
co m e bac k to one sho ote r, E ri c Atw ood a/ k/a “ E l N eg ro ” w

ho w as r el at ed

to Jul iss a an d Lucinda; having so m eone fam iliar w ith Eric Atw ood id entif yin g h im as the shooter; ha vin g pe opl e ide nti fy

Ra ul as the shoo te r from ove rl y sug ge sti ve ne w s r ep or

ts v er sus
a phot o li ne up; ha

vin g a pos sib ly miss ingpho to l ine up w

hic h c ont ai ne d Rau l’ s ph oto but th at no one identi fied; having peo ple who gave vague descriptions o f the shooter now adding to th ei r d es criptions after having seen overly suggest ive news covera ge; ha vin g st at emen

ts f ro m Ra ul t ha t hew as not

thesho ote r; ha

vin g a c as e w he rethe volunt arine ss o f Ra

ul’ s st at emen

ts w as an iss ue fo r the j ur

y to d ec ide ( CR -2 53) ; a

c as e
w he re th e po li ce tol d Rau l t o mak e a sta te m en t or go d ow n f or m ur de r; a nd a c as e
w he re the shoo te r tol d peop le to not be m es sin g w ith his c ousi ns J

uli ssa a nd L uc ind a; to who m , Rau l i s n ot

rel at ed
. The non-acc om

plice evidence w as so uncon vincing in fact as to render the State 's
ove ra ll ca se f

or c onvi ct ion

c le arly a nd s ign if ic an tly le ss p er sua siv e. A lso by a llo w ing Jul iss a and

/o r Lu c i n d a t o b e f o u n d t o b e m e r e f

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

to convict on

either of their testim ony

alone. A ne w tria l i s ne ed ed
.24 SECOND ISSUE PRESENTED The trial court rever sibly err ed in not su

ppressing the statem en t s ; however, al tho ugh re que ste d, f

ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w ha ve not be en e nte re d. ARGUMENT AND AU THORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND ISSUE PRESENTED In the present m atter, a su

ppression hearing wa s had in which the trial court heard evidence. (12-6-13, Investigators Ileana P ena and Orlando Garc ia testify ) A ft er the pr es en

ta tio n of e vid en ce /te sti m ony , de fe ns e counse l c ha lle nge d th e ad m is si bil ity

of Ra ul’ s st at emen

ts a s be ingobt ai ne d in

vio la tio n of T ex as Co de of Crim i n al Pr ocedure A

rticle 38.22; being obt ained in vio lation of M ira nda ; be ing obt ai ne d in

vio la tio n of c onst itu tio na l righ

ts t o ha ve a kno w ing ly , int el lig en

tly a nd voluntary wa iver of rights; being o btained in v iolation of M iss ouri v s. Se ibe rt ; t

he pr oduc t of

Ra ul b ei ng t old

to sim ply sign w ai ve rs ins te ad

of be inggiv en

a ch oic e; the pr oduc t of

Ra ul b ei ng c oe rc ed

by suc h th re at s tha t i f he did not ta lk t ha t he w as goi ng down for the m

urder; o btained in violatio n of the Fifth Am endm ent to the United States Co nst itu tio n; t ha t t he w ai ve rs w er e not si gn ed by w itn es se s; a

nd t he ove ra ll voluntariness of the statem ents. (12-6-13, pp. 81-107 ) D efense c ouns el also requested that th e co urt c onsi de r al l of the sta tut or y a nd c onst itu

tio na l provi sio ns c ite d in

the Motion to Suppress. (12-6-13, pp. 98)25

T he tria l c our

t a ske d th e St ate if it ha d to e nte r fi ndi ngs; to w hic h, the S ta

te
answer ed in the affir

m ative. (12-6-13, p p. 97 ) The trial c ourt stated it would cons ider every thing that wa s presented that m orning. (12-6-13, pp. 81-97) De fe n s e c o u

n s el al s o fi l ed

a M emo r an d

u m i n Su p p o rt o f D ef en d an t La ra ’s Mot ion to Su ppr es s S ta te m en t of A cc use d. ( CR -2 23- 232) The t r i a l c ou r t su bs e qu e nt l y de ni e d su

pp r e ss i on of t

he st a t e m e nt s no t i ngit had
re vie w ed thee vid en ce , the a

rgum en ts, an d f ili ngs of c ouns el
. ( 12- 9- 15, pp. 5- 6) D ef en se c ouns elthe n re que ste d f ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w f or pur pose s of the a ppe lla te r ec or d. ( 12- 9- 15, p. 7) Du ri n g t h e c o u rs e o f t ri al , d ef en s e c o u n s el o b je ct ed t o t h e in t ro d u ct i o n s o f R au l ’s statem ents. ( 12-12-13 , pp. 110-112 , obj ections to st atem ent/States Exhibit 84 were overruled ) (12-12-13, pp . 210 , obj ections to st atem ent/States E xhib it 86 ov erruled) Ra ul’ s in it ia l sta

te m en t no te d th at

he did not r emem be r an y thi ng a bout the shoo tin g. ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 113 -1 14) I n th e se co nd s ta te m en t, Ra ul pla ce s him se lf in t

he van and say s that he wa s th e o ne that opened the do or to the van; that “ Little Be ar” be ga n ge tti ng r ow dy

w ith th e pe opl e at

the pa rt y ; t ha t L itt le Be ar

the n pu lls out

a gun from his w ai st a

nd b eg ins sho oti ng; tha

t he the n c los ed

the doo r to th e va

n; t ha t L itt le Be ar w as “ pr et ty ba rr ed out ”; a nd t ha t “ w he n th ey got to m y hou se the y sta

rt ed loo kin g fo r bul le ts i nsi de the va

n”
. ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 210 -2 16)26

The S tate stressed Raul’ s statem ents to the jury m aking su ch ar g u m ents as that
ev en a cc or din g to Ra

ul, “the y ” loo ke d thr ough the va n to pic k up bul le t c as ing s ( 12- 12- 13, pp. 27- 28) ; t

ha t not eve n Rau l say s At

w ood a/ k/a “ N eg ro ” w as the sho ote r (1 2- 12- 13, pp. 31-32); that “ Mr. La ra’ s own statem ent puts h im in the car” (12-12-13, p. 33); and w en t i nto a le ngt hy na rr at ive pr ec ed ed

by : “ I w an

t t o ta lk t o y ou a

bout w ha t we kn ow fr om

th e Defen da

nt ’s own word s” , to de m on st

rat e g ui lt (12 -1 2- 13 , pp . 38 -4 0)
. In the pr es en

t mat te r, de fe nse c ouns el re que ste d fi ndi ngs of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of la w at the tria l lev el
. R ev ie w of the c le rk s r ec or d do es not sho w the e ntr y of f ind ing s of fact an d c on cl us io ns of l aw. At t his ti m e, a ppe lla te r eq ue sts a n a ba te m en t f or thee ntr y of fi ndi ngs of

f ac t a nd
c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a

w a n d t h e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o m e a n i n g f u l l y b r i e f t

h e i ssu e of
su pp res si on th eref ro m . See V

asqu ez v . Sta te , 411 S
. W
. 3d 9 18 , 920 ( T ex . Crim
. A pp. 2013 ) (a ppellate court m

ust abate appeal for finding s of fac t when appellant challenges volunt arine ss o f sta

te m en t, e ve n w he n f ind ing s no t r eq

uest ed in tria l c our

t) ; State v. Owe n , 201 4 T ex . A

pp. L E X IS 5680 , *7 (T ex . A pp. Co rp us C hrist i M ay

29, 201 4) ( thi s Co ur t a ba te d th e ap pe ala

nd o rd er ed

the tria l c our

t t o is sue f

ind ing s of

fact an d
co nc lus ion s of

la w , the tria l c our

t f ile d it s f ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w , the State f iled an am ended brief in response to the trial court's findings and conclusion s).27 PRAYER W he re fo re , pr em

ise s c onsi de re d, A

ppe lla nt, pr ay s f or an ab at emen

t for f ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w a nd t ha t t he c onvi ct ion

a nd s en te nc e be r ev er se d. Re spe ct fu lly

S ubm itt ed , /s/Rolando Ga

rza Rolando Garza 

### 31 0 W . Uni ver si ty E din burg, T X 785 39 Bu s: ( 956) 318 -1 102 Fa x: ( 956) 381 -5 005 SB N : 24 0046 65 9. 4 C er tif ic at ion In c om pli an ce w ith

T ex as Ru le of A

ppe lla te Proc ed ur e 9. 4( i) (3 ), I ce rt if

y tha t t he
num be r of w or ds i n th is b ri ef

, e xc lud ingtho se m at

te rs li st ed in 9. 4( 2) (B ) is ap pr ox im at el y

5,7 10 word s. /s/Rolando Ga rza Rolando Garza CE RT IFI CAT E O F SE RVI CE I, Ro la ndo G ar za , c er tif y tha t Iha ve m ai le d or

ha nd d el ive re d a

c opy of the fo re g o i n g b r i e f t o T h e o d o r e C
. H a k e , 1 0 0 N
. C l o s n e r , E d i n

b u r g , T e x a s 7 8 5 39, and t o Ra ul L ar a, # 0190 4469 , St ile s U nit , 3060 FM 3514 , Be au

m ont , T X 7770 5 on J

une 19, 2015
. /s/Rolando Ga rza Rolando Garza