Opinion ID: 4534441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Garcia moves to exclude Xbox searches.

Text: ¶24. The following month, on December 8, 2016, the trial court took up Garcia’s motion in limine to exclude the explicit searches on the Xbox 360 based on lack of authentication and unfair prejudice. See M.R.E. 901; M.R.E. 403. Garcia argued there was no proof he was the one who made those internet searches and that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice. 11 ¶25. Detective Sam Jewell testified for the State. He explained that while Garcia lived in a two-bedroom apartment with another family,8 that family was out of town the week of JT’s disappearance and death. Detective Jewell testified he seized the Xbox from Garcia’s bedroom, which Garcia did not share with anyone. On cross-examination, Detective Jewell admitted it was possible that another person could have used the Xbox the week of July 1018, 2014, including Julian Gray, who at the time of the suppression hearing was under indictment for possession of child pornography. The State also called the digital forensic examiner with the FBI. This examiner was responsible for validating the sexually explicit search queries the week of JT’s disappearance and death. On cross-examination, the examiner acknowledged that the user name for the Xbox account was “dummy” with no password protection. ¶26. The trial judge denied Garcia’s motion in limine. On the question of authenticity, the judge found, There is also no proof that anyone else actually accessed the Xbox during the relevant time period. There’s nothing to indicate that anyone else was in the room, had access to the Xbox, and certainly there’s a possibility it was used by other people, it was moved other places, et cetera. Anything is possible. It could have floated at some point. But that’s not likely either. ¶27. Based on the State’s witnesses’ testimony, the trial judge ruled the State sufficiently authenticated that the searches actually came from Garcia’s Xbox. It would be up to a jury to decide how much weight to give this information and if Garcia, Gray, or someone else 8 The family consisted of a coworker of Garcia’s, the coworker’s wife, and their two small children. 12 made the searches. At this point, the judge found no basis to exclude the Xbox searches on authenticity grounds. ¶28. The trial judge also rejected Garcia’s unfair-prejudice argument. VII. The trial court holds pretrial omnibus hearing. ¶29. On December 20, 2016, the trial court held a pretrial omnibus hearing. Of note for this appeal, when the judge reached the issue of competency, she asked Garcia’s counsel, “[A]t this point, . . . there’s no claim of incompetency to stand trial but for this anxiety issue we’ve already addressed, and that’s not really a competency issue so much as a being able to pay attention and participate, right?” To which Garcia’s counsel responded, “That’s correct, Your Honor.” VIII. The trial court revisits Garcia’s anxiety issue. ¶30. On January 12, 2017, the week before the scheduled trial, the trial court held a hearing “to follow up on Dr. Storer’s earlier testimony concerning the anxiety issue.” ¶31. Dr. Storer testified that, after Garcia received medical treatment for his anxiety, Dr. Storer reevaluated Garcia in front of Garcia’s entire legal team, plus a dozen officers, to create as close as possible the courtroom setting. While Garcia still had anxiety disorder, in Dr. Storer’s opinion the medical intervention had been effective to the point that there was no significant interference with Garcia’s competency-related abilities. Dr. Storer found Garcia competent either to stand trial or to enter a guilty plea and waive his constitutional rights. ¶32. The trial judge then entered her ruling: 13 All right. Then at this point, clearly the court previously found that Mr. Garcia was competent with regard to his mental functioning, his intellectual abilities, et cetera. But there was some concern with not purely competence, but his ability to be in the courtroom and to fully participate in his defense, to communicate with his counsel, if he choose[s] to do so, to be able to testify. And that was all tied to this anxiety disorder and his feeling a heightened level of anxiety in the courtroom. . . . Based though, on Dr. Storer’s testimony as well as the court’s observations of Mr. Garcia, it appears that that matter has been fully addressed with regard to this new medication and perhaps these new interventions that Dr. Storer testified to. And so it appears to me that Mr. Garcia is fully competent and fully able to go forward in his matter, to make all necessary decisions with regard to assertion of his rights, waiver of his rights if he chooses to waive any, testifying if [he] chooses to testify, going to trial if that is his choice or entering a guilty plea if that is his choice.