NUMBER 13-14-00465-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

ABELINO HERNANDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

A jury found appellant, Abelino Hernandez, guilty of the offense of 

aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, and sentenced him to thirty years’ 

imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(3)(A) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 

R.S.). By one issue, Hernandez contends that the trial court erred in failing to 
2

exclude evidence that he claims was unfairly prejudicial under Texas Rule of 

Evidence 403. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND1

On March 2, 2013, shortly after midnight, a man armed with a knife entered 

a convenience store demanding that the cashier open the cash register. The man 

concealed his identity by pulling his shirt over his head. When the cashier was not 

able to open the cash register, the man attempted to pry it open with his knife but 

cut himself in the process, leaving his blood-stained knife at the crime scene before 

absconding. Through a subsequent investigation, the police determined that the 

blood found at the crime scene belonged to Hernandez. The State then charged 

him with aggravated robbery. 

At trial, the State called Holly Jedlicka, a crime scene supervisor, who 

testified about her attempt to identify the perpetrator of the crime through 

fingerprint evidence. Jedlicka testified that the police collected fingerprints at the 

crime scene and compared them to fingerprints stored in a database called the 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). Jedlicka further testified that 

the AFIS database stores the fingerprints of state employees and arrestees from

“any jail facility.” Hernandez objected to this testimony. The trial court overruled 

Hernandez’s objection. After the trial court overruled Hernandez’s objection, 

Jedlicka testified that the fingerprints collected at the crime scene did not match 

any of the fingerprints stored in the AFIS database. 

II. DISCUSSION

 

1 Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will 

not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the basic 

reasons for it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
3

A. Rule 403

By his sole issue, Hernandez contends that the trial court erred in admitting 

Jedlicka’s testimony concerning the AFIS database under Texas Rule of Evidence 

403. Specifically, Hernandez asserts that the probative value of Jedlicka’s 

testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because 

it conveyed to the jury that he had been previously arrested. However, the entirety 

of Hernandez’s trial objection to Jedlicka’s testimony was as follows: “Your Honor, 

I object that we have crossed the line into the jury thinking the [finger]prints that 

exist—.” Although the trial court overruled this objection, Hernandez never 

referenced rule 403 or elaborated on the basis for his objection. 

In order for a complaint to be preserved for review on appeal, the 

complaining party must make the specific objection at trial and obtain a ruling on 

it. See TEX. R. APP. 33.1(a)(1)-(2); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2002). Hernandez failed to preserve his rule 403 complaint because he did 

not object on that ground. See TEX. R. APP. 33.1(a)(1); see also Goodwin v. State, 

No. 13-12-00035-CR, 2012 WL 3590723, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 

20, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (providing that a rule 

403 objection must be made at trial in order to raise such a complaint on appeal).

Even had Hernandez preserved his rule 403 complaint for appeal, the trial

court’s ruling was proper. We apply an abuse of discretion standard to determine 

whether a trial court erred in admitting evidence under rule 403. Trevino v. State, 

228 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref'd). A trial court 

does not abuse its discretion unless “its decision is so clearly wrong as to lie 
4

outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” Id. (citing 

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh'g)). 

Texas Rule of Evidence 403 gives the trial court discretion to exclude “relevant 

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of. . . unfair 

prejudice[.]” See TEX. R. EVID. 403. When making this determination, we consider 

the following factors: (1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to 

impress the jury in some irrational, yet indelible way; (3) the time needed to develop 

the evidence; and (4) the proponent's need for the evidence. Erazo v. State, 144 

S.W.3d 487, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We now turn to a consideration of these 

factors. 

Here, Jedlicka’s testimony about the AFIS database was not particularly 

probative; it only showed that the AFIS database stored the fingerprints of 

arrestees and state employees, and that the person who left the fingerprints at the 

crime scene could not be identified through that database. Because this evidence 

did not implicate Hernandez or rule him out as a suspect, it was not necessary to 

show a fact of any consequence in proving that Hernandez committed the charged 

offense. Although not particularly probative, the parties agree that the time needed 

to develop this evidence was minimal. Nevertheless, Hernandez argues that this 

evidence carried a great potential to impress the jury in an irrational, yet indelible 

way because it conveyed that he had been previously arrested. However, the 

record does not support Hernandez’s argument. Jedlicka never testified that 

Hernandez had been previously arrested; nor did she testify that Hernandez’s 

fingerprint profile was stored in the AFIS database. Instead, she testified that the 
5

fingerprints collected at the crime scene were run through the AFIS database for 

a match and that no match was found.2 Read in context, this evidence indicated 

to the jury that whoever left the fingerprints at the crime scene had no arrest history. 

Notwithstanding this view of the record, Hernandez appears to argue that 

the mere use of the AFIS database to identify the perpetrator suggested to the jury 

that Hernandez’s profile was already in the database, and that the power of this 

suggestion carried the potential to impress the jury in some irrational way. 

However, we agree with the State that, if the use of the AFIS database suggested 

a preexisting profile attributable to Hernandez, its potential to impress the jury in 

some irrational way was greatly weakened by the fact that the database also stored 

the fingerprints of state employees. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391; Mata 

v. State, No. 05-05-00504-CR, 2007 WL 882439, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 

26, 2007, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that 

testimony about the presence of appellant's DNA profile on a database that stored 

the DNA profiles of both government employees and criminals did not carry the 

potential to impress the jury in an irrational manner). 

Weighing the Erazo factors, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s 

decision to admit the evidence under rule 403 was “so clearly wrong as to lie 

outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” See Trevino, 

 

2 Specifically, Jedlicka testified as follows:

Q: Okay. Mrs. Jedlicka, when the fingerprints collected in this case were run 

through AFIS, were there any matches?

A. It—no. There was not any match at all.
6

228 S.W.3d at 734 (citing Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391); Erazo, 144 S.W.3d at 

489; see also TEX. R. EVID. 403. 

B. Harm Analysis

Even if we were to assume that Jedlicka’s testimony improperly suggested 

Hernandez’s arrest history to the jury and that the trial court erred in admitting that 

evidence, the error was harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence under 

rule 403 is non-constitutional error. See Ketchum v. State, 199 S.W. 3d 581, 593 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d). In reviewing the impact of nonconstitutional error, we may not grant Hernandez a new trial if, after examining the 

record as a whole, we are fairly assured that the error did not have “a substantial 

and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.” See Casey v. 

State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In making this determination, 

we may consider “any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury's 

consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, [and] the 

character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with 

other evidence in the case.” Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2000). We may also consider closing arguments, evidence of the defendant's 

guilt, and the jury instructions. See Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355–56 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2002); Morales, 32 S.W.3d at 867.

First, concerning the evidence of guilt, Hernandez’s identity as the robber 

was established by the DNA evidence that he left behind at the crime scene. The 

cashier testified at trial that the robber accidentally cut himself with his knife before 

he absconded, leaving his blood-stained knife at the crime scene. A forensic 
7

scientist then tested the blood on the robber’s knife and determined that it 

belonged to Hernandez. See Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 357. 

Second, concerning the nature of the error itself, we observe that Jedlicka’s 

description of the AFIS database was brief, general, and non-inflammatory in the 

sense that the jury heard no details concerning any arrest—or whether it resulted 

in conviction, acquittal, or dismissal—beyond the mere fact that the databased 

stored the fingerprints of arrestees. See id. at 355. Furthermore, as previously 

noted, the database also contained the fingerprints of non-arrestees, including 

state employees; thus, Hernandez’s jury was free to believe that, if his fingerprints 

were in the AFIS database, it was because he had been employed by the state 

rather than arrested. 

Third, the trial court's charge instructed the jury that “[a]ll persons are 

presumed to be innocent,” thereby eliminating any potential that the alleged 

suggestion of Hernandez’s prior arrest history influenced the jury’s verdict. See id. 

Finally, during closing argument, the State made no mention of the AFIS database 

and did not emphasize the alleged error. See id. After reviewing the record as a 

whole, we are fairly assured that the error, if any, did not have a substantial and 

injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. See West v. State, 

169 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd) (holding that the trial 

court's error in permitting the State to ask the defendant whether he had been 

arrested “more than twenty times” did not have a substantial or injurious effect on 

the jury's verdict when (1) the evidence of defendant’s guilt was substantial, (2) the 

State asked only one question concerning his arrests and did not dwell on the 
8

issue, (3) the court's charge instructed the jury to presume his innocence, and (4) 

the State’s closing argument told the jury about two prior convictions but did not 

address any other prior arrests); see also Casey, 215 S.W.3d at 885. We therefore 

overrule Hernandez’s sole issue. 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

/s/ Rogelio Valdez 

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

23rd day of July, 2015.