## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P
- 75, 358

JO E L U N A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS
ON DI RE CT AP P EA L F ROM CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 6
- CR- 0 0 3 3 I N T HE 3 7 9 TH DI S TR I CT COURT BEX AR CO UNTY
H ERV EY , J. , fil e d a c onc ur r ing opi nio n in whic h W OM ACK and J OHN S ON , JJ., joined .

CO NC UR RI NG OP I NI ON
I n point of err or thirteen, a ppellant claims that the trial c ourt erred i n d en y i ng appellant’ s “motion to suppress a

n im p e r mi s s ib ly s u g g e s ti v e id e n ti f

ic a ti o n wh ich cr eate d a substantial likelihood of mis ide nti fi c a tio n a t tr ia l.” Whil e I joi n the ma jor ity ’s dis po sit ion of thi s po int of e rr or, I wr ite
separ ately to emphasize my

conce rn about the ide ntification proce dure e mploy ed. As we state d in Ba rle

yv . S tat e , 9 06 S.W. 2d 27 , 33 ( Te x.Cr .App . 1 99 5) , “ [s]ug g e sti ve ne ss may be cr eate d by

the manner

in which the pre -trial identification procedur e is conduc ted, forLuna

– 2 example by

police . . . sug g esting that a suspec t is included in the photo arra y .” The rec ord fr om the suppression hea

ring ref lects that appe llant was not a suspect when D etec tive L eonar d beg an showing pictures to appellant. When appellant later became a suspect, L eonar d showed Tova r a six-person ph oto a rr a y

wi th a pp e lla nt’ s p ic tur e in i t. H e re , L e on a rd ’s te sti mony re ve a ls: Q. [S TATE]: And when y ou prese nted that photo lineup to Mr

. Tovar, how did y ou pr e se nt i t to him ? A

. [ D E T E C T IV E L E O N A R D ] : I– I s a ti t d o w n i n f r o n t o f h i m a n d I t o l d

h i m , O k a y, there ’s a suspec t in this lineup. Ican’ t tell y o u wh o it is. L et me know if the re’ s any body that looks familiar to y ou. Q. You told him there wa s a suspec t in the lineup? A. W e have–we have a suspect and we’ ve placed him in the l ineup, and let me know if there ’s any

body that looks suspicious to you. I ’m sorry . Ex cuse me . That looks familiar to y ou. Q. And did he r ecog nize any one? A. As Iwa s la

y ingit d ow n, he po int e d to [ap pe lla nt] a nd sa id, Th a t’ s h im. Ver y soon after

this, the St ate c ontinued to que stion L eonar d on whether he told Tovar that
t h e r e w a s a

s u s p e c ti n t h e s i x - p e r s o n p h o t o a r r a y. Q. Dete ctive L eonar d, I ’m g oing to a sk y ou to look at pag e four of y our re port, the e ntr y that’ s d a te d Aug us t 11 of 04 , 1 5:1 7 h ours . th
A

. O k a y. Q. I n there –do y ou have in your repor t that you told [Tovar] that there was a suspec t in the lineup? A. No. Q

. O k a y. A n d

s o i s t h a tj u s ts o m e t h i n g t h a tyo uh a v e r e m e m b e r e d t o d a y? A. No. I don’t specif

ically reme mber say

in g t h ere was a

suspect. I

told him t here wa s so me bo dy , a

su sp e c t, I jus t us e d th a t w or d, a n in div idu a l.Luna

– 3 Q. That’s the issue we’ re here on rig ht now. So it’s very important that y ou are very specific about what y ou told [ Tovar]. Take a minute and r emember exactly what instructions y ou g ave Mr . Tovar w hen y ou handed him that lineup. (P a us e in P ro c e e din g s) A. Wel l I tr y a nd ke e p to th e same sc ri pt e ve ry tim e . Wh a t I

–w hat I wo uld te ll the m, a nd I ’l l sa y it i s e xac tly

a s I a lw a y s sa

y to peopl e: Oka y . Wha t w e have a re six individuals. The suspect may or may not be in the lineup. We can’ t tell y ou. You just need to let us know if any body looks familiar. Q. So is that what y ou reme mber telling Mr. Tovar , or what y ou said befor e? WhichA. Wel l th at’ s what I

us e e ve ry

tim e . Wh e n I

–I sa id, Wel l th e su sp e c t ma y be in t h er e. I ’m j u s tgo i n g t h ro u gh

– Iwa s p ar ap h ra s i n g. Prior to L eonar d’s testimony , the witness, Tovar , testified that he “knew exactly ” what the suspect looked like a

nd that h e i m m ed i ately

rec og nized appellant’s picture from the photo ar ray without L e o n a r d s u g g e s ti n g w h ic h p ic tu r e to c h o o s e . T o v a r a ls o te s ti f ie d th a t, im me d iate ly

afte r identify ing a

ppellant’s picture from this photo arra y , he was shown another photogr aph of the bac k of appe llant’s head a

nd that he re cog nized the tattoo on the back of appellant’ s head. Q. [STA TE ]: An d th e re c a me a tim e wh e n y ou loo ke d a t a ph oto lin e up a nd

y ou did re c og nize so me on e . I s th a t c or re c t? A. [TO VA R]: Y e s. Ye s. Q. Tell the J udg e how–what instructions the detective gave y ou when he prese nted the se ph oto g ra

ph s to y ou

to l oo k at? * * * A. I can’ t rea lly

say instructions. He just showed me, the se ar e more pictures that we have he re. See if, y ou know-- Q. Why wa s h e a sk ingy ou

to l oo k at ph oto g ra

ph s? A. B e c a us e I –I kn e w e xac tly

wh a t he loo ke d li ke . A nd Ime a n, Iha d d e sc ri be d h im completely . And the big g est thing I reme mber was the tattoo on the bac k of the he ad. * * * Q. Towards the end he showed y ou–Detec tive L eonar d showed y ou a photo lineupLuna

– 4

a nd y ou fi na lly re c og nize d s ome on e in t

ho se pic tur e s. Cor

re c t? A. Cor re c t. Q. When he showe d y ou–when he handed y ou that piece of pape r with photog raphs on it, did he sugg est to y ou in any way that y ou–that– wh at picture to c hoose fr om tho se ph oto lin e up s? A. No. No. Q. Did he tell y ou that y ou should pick someone out of that photo lineup? A. No. * * * Q

. W h e n yo uf

i n a l l y d i d r e c o g n i z e s o m e o n e , d i d

yo ut e l l h i m i m m e d i a t e l y? A. B efor e he put it on the table, I saw it and I

said, That’s him rig ht there. * * * Q. [DEFENSE]: Did he tell y ou–what did the off icer say to y ou afte r y ou identified [a p p e ll a n t] ? A. He wa s–

he a sk e d me , A re y ou

sure ? Wel l, h e wa s–

he wa s st a rt le d, be c a

us e he–bef ore he even put the paper down, That’s him. Be cause I s aw h i m fa cing forwa rd. And like, I had alre ady told him about the tattoo on the back. A nd he like, he wa s startled, rig ht, that I pointed him out right aw ay . And when he showed me the sid e pic tur e of

him , h e ask ed me, Are y ou sure ? Ar e y ou

sure ? He g oe s, L e t me sh owy ou thi s. An d th a t’ s whe n he sh ow e d me the sid e ph oto

. An d I g o, Ye a h; I tol d y ou that’s him. That’s the one

. * * * Q. [S TATE]: Did he also show y ou–afte r y ou had identified [appellant’ s] phot og raph and sig ned it and date d it, did he also show y ou a photog raph the n of a tattoo on the back of the hea d? A. Ye s. Q. And did y ou rec og nize that tattoo? A. Ye s. T o v a r s e e me d to s u g g e s t o n c r o s s - e xa mi n a ti o n , h o w e v e r , th a t L e o n a r d to ld h im th a t t h e s ixperson photo ar

ray contained a

suspect; but then immediately seeme d to sugg est otherwise

.Luna

– 5 Q. [DE F EN SE]: D id h e te ll y ou the y ha d a ne w b a tc h o f s us pe c ts? A. [TOVAR]: No. No. Q. Di d he te ll y ou thi s–

the y ha d ide nti fi e d some on e a nd y ou sh ou ld l oo k th ro ug h th is new batch? A. The se cond time? Q. Yea h. A

. T h e s e c o n d

t i m e , ye s ; t h a tt h e y m i g h th a v e g o t t e n s o m e b o dy. Q. So then–so they

told y ou they

might have g otten somebody and to-- A. Yo u k no w w hat, I ’m

so rr y . I t wa s a ft e r. I t wa s a ft e r t he se c on d ti me . I

g ot a c a ll from him. He told me, You know what, I think we might have identified–that’s when he tol d me tha

t th e y mig ht h a ve ide nti fi e d s ome bo dy that f it that de sc ri pti on . Wel l, but Ihad alr eady

identified the picture . So it doesn’t make sense. B ut-- The trial co u rt rec essed the pr ocee dings f or the da y . The ne x t day , the State ar g ued to the trial court that the photo lineup wa s not impermissibl y sug g estive a n d t hat “De tective L eonar d

c ha ng e d w hat he ha d in iti a lly sa id r e g a rd ingwh e the r h e tol d [T ov a r] .

. . that the re wa s a su sp e c t in the lineup or not.” The trial co u rt denied a ppellant’s motion to suppress Tovar’ s in-court identification and r

uled: [TRIAL CO UR T]: A ll r ig ht. He re’s my rul ing . I ’v e loo ke d at th e re a l- tim e that I have the benef

it of here on the benc h. I ’ve looke d at t he cases. And l et m e just rea d into the rec ord–so it doe sn’t have to be revie wed a g ain. L et me g o up to it. I know Detec tive L eonar d’s initial testim ony was–I don’t want to say

it was unclea

r, but it– he wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

re -a sk e d th e qu e sti on , w hat e xac tly did y ou te ll h im. But befor e I even addre ss that issue, I ’ve revie wed the te stimony of Mr. Tova

r. And I thi nk on dir e c t exam inatio n an d cr os s exam inatio n the qu e sti on c a me up re pe a te dly about being shown the photo lineup. And his answe r here is best summarized when the question was pose d: When he showed y ou–when he h an d ed y o u the piece of paper with the phot og raphs on it, did he sug g est to y ou in any way that–what picture to c ho os e fr om t

ho se ph oto lin e up s? An d the a ns we r wa s no. No

. Qu e sti on . Did he tell y ou y ou sho u l d p i ck som eone out of that photo lineup? Answer . No.Luna

– 6

1 No evidenc e wa s prese nted that appe llant’ s p hotogr aph wa s among any of the other approximately

900 photogr aphs that Tovar viewed pr ior t o i dentifying a ppellant’s photo from the six -per son photo arr ay at i ssue here. L eonar d was unable say whether Tovar ha d previously

viewed the other f

ive photos in this array . L eonar d testified: Q. [DEFENSE]: He may

have se en the other

five–or he probably

had see n the other fi ve duri nga ll the oth e r l ine up s th a t he ha d s e e n. Cor re c t? A. [L EONARD]: I have no w ay of knowing if he had se en them duringall the mug book viewing s beca

use he went throug h sever al, s ever al phot og raphs. We’re ta lking close to ne arly 900 photogr aphs he had g one throug h. The only point in thi s that I ’m able to say is he never identified any body afte r seeing so many individuals unti l he

(continued...) Q u e s ti o n . So w h a t d id h e te ll y o u w h e n h e p u t th e p h o to g r a p h s in f r o n t o f y ou? Answer . He–he would hand them to me and, L ook throug h these. You don’ t re co gn i z e n o o n e? No (s i c) l o o k at t h es e. Qu es t i o n . Ok ay . An s we r. L o o k t h ro u gh thi s o ne –th ro ug h th is o ne . Q ue sti on . Wh e n y ou fi na lly did re c og nize so me on e , d id y ou tell him immediately ? Answer

. Be fore he put it on the table, I saw it–his answer is: Bef ore he put it on the t able, I saw it and said, That’s him right ther e. Que stion. Okay . I ’m g oing to show y ou [t he photo a rra y ]. Even though this is black a nd white, do y ou re c og nize thi s a s a

c op y of ph oto lin e up ? An sw e r. Ye s. Ye s. Ithink we all ag ree initially th at Detective L eonar d said something a bout when he initially handed him the photo lineup that it mig ht have ha d a suspec t. And he wa s subsequently

re- asked that ques t i on on redire ct or c ross examination, I can’ t re me mbe r t

he or de r. Th e qu e sti on

c a me fr om t

he Sta te . L e t me jus t f

ind it. He wa s re- asked the question following some q u es t i ons by [t he def ense]. And the State asked: Take a minute a nd reme mber e x actly

what instructions y ou g ave Mr

. Tovar when y ou handed him the l ineup. And hi s answe r was, Well I try to keep the same sc ri pt e ve ry

tim e . Wh a t I

–w hat I –w hat I wo uld te ll the m, a nd I ’l l sa

y it e xac tly as it (sic) I would say it to people. Okay . What we have here are individuals. The suspect may

or may not be in the lineup. We can’ t tell y ou. You just need to let us know if any

body looks familiar. Que stion. I s that what y ou reme mber telling Mr. Tovar, or what y ou said befor e? Which–Answer. Well, that’s what I use eve ry time. So that was his response. A nd having revie wed these case s and other case s, Ican’ t fi nd a ny thi ngthat st and s f

or the pr op os iti on

that a ft e r s ome bo dy ’s loo ke d at so me 900-plus photos if (sic) individuals who have not been i dentified a re in those 900 photos it would re n d er t h at lineup overly sug g estive to wher e an in- court ide nti fi c a tio n wo uld be su pp re ssi ble

. So I ’m

g oin g to d e ny

the mot ion

to s up pr e ss the photo I D at this time. 1Luna

– 7

(...continued) 1 g ot t o [a pp e lla nt]. Th a t’ s h owpo sit ive he wa s.
2 Se e Le da yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 713, 718 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) (e rro n eo u s ruling admitting evidenc e is not reve rsible er ror when other such evidenc e is a dmitted without objection either befor e or af ter the c omplained-of r

uling)

. Despite my

conce rns re g ardingthe proce ss e mploy ed, the tria l court’s de cision is reviewe d

on a pp e a l un de r a

n a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand a rd . T his re c or d, vie we d in th e lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g , su pp or ts the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to de ny a pp e lla nt’ s motio n t o s up pre ss Tovar’ s in-court identification of appellant c onnecting him to the ex trane ous ag g ravated robbe ry of Tovar. Th e t ri al cour

t could have r easona

bly found that the proc ess culminating in Tovar’ s identification of a

ppellant was not impermissibly sug g estive and tha t , ev en if the pr ocess wa s imp e rm iss ibl y

s u g g e s t i v e , i t

d i d n o t c r e a t e a s u bs tanti a l li ke lih oo d th a t T ov a r m isi de nti fi e d a pp e lla nt. Notwithstanding this, any err or in the trial cour

t’s ruling was re ndere d harmless whe n

a pp e lla nt l a te r t oo k th e sta

nd a nd a dmi tte d comm it ting the a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

of To va r a nd a lso 2 testified that he g ot a “r

ush” fr om breaking into people s’ hom es whil e they wer e home a nd that he should be sentenc ed to death. Q. [S TATE]: You mentioned that y ou wer e guilty of eve ry crime that we prove d up in t he pa st w e e k. I s th a t r ig ht? A. [APP EL L ANT]: I ’m g uilty of eve ry crime you all broug ht up plus-- Q. And y ou also indicated that there w as some cr imes that we ha dn’t broug ht up? A. Many c ri me s. * * * Q. T h e a d

r e n a li n e r u s h th a t y o u w e r e a d d ic te d to

. T e r r o r iz in g p e o p le g ave y ou a rush?Luna

– 8 A. Not rea lly terror izi ng them, just the fact that I was in a home while t hey wer e ther e g ave me a rush. Q. Yo u te rr or ize d th e Mc Gl ou g hli ns . Co rr e c t? A. Cor re c t. Q. Yo u te rr or ize d th e D’ Am ic os . Co rr e c t? A. Cor re c t. Q. Yo u te rr or ize d V ic ky

Ca lsa da . Co rr e c t? A. Cor re c t. Q. And that g ave you a rush. A. I t did. Q. And let’s not for g et Candido Tovar . You terr orized him too, di dn’t y ou? A. Cor re c t. Q. And that g ave you a rush? A. I t did. * * * Q. I sn’t it a fac t, Mr. Luna, that throug hout the past y ear y ou h av e p l o t t ed, and pla nn e d, a nd sc he me d, a nd

the sc he me tha

t y ou fi na lly c a me up wi th w a s, if

Ite ll this jury Iwant the de ath pena lty , they ’re g oing to be so sickened by my crimes that they ’re g oing to g ive me what I d o n ’t wa n t , which is, ac cordingto y ou, a life se nte nc e . I sn ’t

that w hat th is l itt le sh owis a ll a bo ut? A. No. I don’t see my self spendingthe re st of my life in prison. Ig et out I ’ll be 70 y ear s old. W hat am I

g oing to have? Every

body Iknow, my

mom, my dad, cha nces a re , th e y ’r e g oin g to be pa sse d a wa y . I a in’ t g oin g to have no thi ng . I g e t out–I wo uld have sp e nt m or e lif

e in p ri so n in

40 y e a rs tha

n I have spent in my who le lif e . So wha t wou ld I have to l os e . G ive n th e de a th s e nte nc e Iwo uld be a ble to f oc us my attention on g etting stre ng thened spiritually and not be sidetra cked. This is not no scheme. This is the truth. I ’m not afr aid of g etting the lethal injection. I ’m not afr aid of de ath. So no, this i s not no scheme. * * * Q. L e t me make su re we have a ll this str a ig ht, Mr . L un a . Y ou

wa nt t his jur y toLuna

– 9

answe r spec ial issue number one , y es; that y ou are a future dang er? A. B e c a us e Ia m. Q. An d y ou

wa nt t his jur y to a ns we r s pe c ia l is su e nu mbe r t wo , n o; b e c a

us e the re is no su ff ic ie nt m iti g a tin g re a so n to sp a re y our l if e . T hat’ s w hat y ou

wa nt. Cor re c t? A. Cor re c t. Q. No qu e sti on

a bo ut i t? A. No qu e sti on

a bo ut i t. Q. Ar e y ou

g oin g to g ive up a ll y our a pp e a ls? A. I ’m n o tgo i n g t o t ry

t o ap p ea l t o n o t h i n g. Q. Okay . So y ou’re done. A. Yep. Q. An d th a t’ s w hat y ou

wa nt. A. Th a t’ s e xac tly

wh a t I wa nt. Q

. A n d i t ’ s yo u r t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h i s i s n ’ ts o m e s o rto f l i t t l e r e v e r s e p s yc h o l o g y p l o y? A. No. On this recor d, any err or in the trial court’s ruling admitting Tovar’ s in-court identific ation of appe llant connec ting him to the ag g ravated robber y of Tovar could not have a ffe cted the jur y ’s

answe rs to the spec ial issues. Wi th these comments, I join the Court’s opinion.

H e r v e y , J.

Filed: Oc tober 29, 2008 Pub lis h