Court Opinion

ID: 9913199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 07:09:48.186814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:46.883389
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 21, 2023

                                         In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00791-CR

                        YASER ABDEL SAID, Appellant
                                    V.
                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. F08-33908-Y

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      In a 2022 trial delayed by his twelve years in hiding, a jury convicted Yaser

Abdel Said of capital murder for the January 1, 2008 close range shooting of his

teenage daughters in the back of his taxi at the Omni Mandalay in north Irving. We

affirm in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

      Said had long mistreated his family, and on December 21, 2007, his elder

daughter A.S. emailed a trusted teacher about problems she and her younger sister

S.S. were having at home:

      [S.S.] and I were talking and we are having a lot of issues at home . . . . I
      dont want police involved until we are totally ready.. god I am so scared
      right now its crazy… ok well as you know we are not allowed to date
      and my dad is arranging our marriage… my dad said that I cannot put
      it off anymore I have to get married this year that I cannot attend college
      without getting married . . . . [S.S.] and I have both decided that we do
      not hate arabs but do not want to live by the culture or marry men from
      over there especially men we dont know or love… we have had each
      others backs and have been dating… we dont know if its love or
      infatuation, but the point is we want our chance… my dad began
      checking phone records and he took my sister to the room and
      specifically threatened to “hurt her very badly” if she didnt tell what
      was going on……when we were younger he used to do things and he’s
      started hinting at them again.. look I could go on forever he has simply
      made our lives a nightmare.. he’s one man, not god. Someone should
      be able to stop him!!!!!! he can’t torment us this way! He shouldn’t….
      anyway we are running away… hopefully before the break ends.. I
      know that he will search till he finds us and he will without ANY
      DRAMA OR DOUBT kill us…. I am worried for my mother but she
      would tell him out of fear… we cant bring her and I can only hope she
      doesnt get hurt . . . .is it illegal for [S.S.] to leave shes only 17.. how
      will we finish school? and can he track us from tht? should we change
      our names!!!? . . . . thank you soooooooooo much for everything! wish
      us luck. . . . WE WILL GET THE LAW INVOLVED SO PLZ KEEP
      THIS BETWEEN US WE NEED OUR CHANCE TO GET SETTLED
      BECAUSE WHEN HE GOES TO JAIL HIS BROTHERS WILL STEP
      IN.. WE HAVE TO THINK THIS THROUGH U DONT KNOW HOW
      THEY THINK.. heck I live with them and still dont understand it….life
      goes on..

      S.S. and A.S. ultimately decided to include their mother Patricia in their plan

to flee the state with their boyfriends, E.P. and Edgar. The five of them left together

on December 25, after Mr. Said threatened A.S. with a gun. The group got an

apartment together in Oklahoma, but returned to Lewisville on December 30 because

Edgar needed to attend a family event, and Patricia told the girls she needed to run

errands and visit her sister.

                                         –2–
      Unbeknownst to A.S., Patricia had convinced S.S. it would be safe to return

home. When the four returned to Lewisville, E.P. went home, A.S. stayed with Edgar,

and Patricia took S.S. to meet Mr. Said. Mr. Said appeared happy to see S.S. and

asked about A.S., but Patricia told him A.S. was staying with a friend.

      Two days later, on New Year’s Day 2008, Patricia showed up at Edgar’s house

demanding that A.S. return home with her. As A.S. left, she warned Edgar that he

had failed to protect her and would never see her again. Edgar interpreted that to

mean A.S. believed she was going to die and not that she was breaking up with him.

When A.S. arrived home, Mr. Said insisted on taking A.S. and S.S. out to dinner to

talk. Patricia asked to come along, but Mr. Said refused.

      Mr. Said left with the girls in his leased taxi around 7:00 p.m., and Edgar, who

had gone with his father to bail an uncle out of jail, testified he saw the taxi on the

road around that same time. According to Edgar, Mr. Said was driving with A.S. in

the front seat and S.S. in the back seat. A.S. looked scared, and Edgar thought it was

strange that Patricia was not with them. He and his father followed the taxi for a

while, but they eventually concluded the girls seemed safe and abandoned pursuit.

      At 7:29 p.m., Patricia called Mr. Said and asked if he would reconsider

allowing her to join him and the girls for dinner. Mr. Said again refused and told her

he was putting gas in the taxi and would be home soon.

      Four minutes later, 911 dispatch received a frantic call from S.S.’s cell phone.

S.S. shouted: “Help! My dad shot me! (inaudible) I’m dying!” When the operator

                                         –3–
asked what was going on, S.S. replied: “I’m dying. That’s what’s up.” Soon after,

S.S. could be heard pleading, “Oh my God, not again! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!” S.S.

said no further words on the 911 call, but the line tragically captured another minute

and a half of her dying whimpering and moaning. The call stayed connected for an

additional 41 minutes while police searched for S.S.’s location.

      About an hour later, they found the taxi abandoned at a taxi stand outside the

Omni Mandalay. A.S. was in the front seat with two gunshot wounds to the chest,

and S.S. was in the back seat with nine gunshot wounds in total. An autopsy

determined four of the shots S.S. sustained were at very close range.

      Mr. Said turned his phone off shortly after S.S.’s 911 call and with the help of

his son and other relatives, evaded capture for more than twelve years.

      At trial, Mr. Said testified he was upset that the girls ran away with their

boyfriends, but he denied killing them. Instead, he claimed he pulled over at a bus

station, left the girls alone in the taxi, and ran off into the woods because he was

scared that the girls’ friends might be following them intending to harm him. He

claimed to have only learned about the murders later and saw news coverage that he

thought was “un-normal” and “harsh.” So he decided to continue to hide from

authorities because he thought the media was steered against him by a “secret

agenda,” and he was afraid he would not get a fair trial.

      Mr. Said acknowledged that he did not tell Patricia he was concerned people

were following them when he spoke to her just minutes before S.S.’s 911 call. And

                                         –4–
he admitted he had a nine millimeter handgun with him in his taxi that night,

although he claimed he did not take it with him when he got scared and ran off into

the woods.

      The jury convicted Mr. Said of capital murder, and the trial court assessed the

mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In his sole

issue on appeal, Mr. Said contends the trial court erred by allowing the State to

introduce extraneous evidence that: (1) A.S. and S.S. accused him of sexual abuse

in 1998; (2) Patricia filed a retaliation case against him based on threats that he

would kill Patricia if she and the girls continued to pursue the sexual abuse

allegations; (3) Mr. Said was abusive towards Patricia; and (4) Mr. Said threatened

A.S. with a gun shortly before the murders.

      We review the trial court’s rulings for abuse of discretion and will uphold

them if correct under any theory of law applicable to the case, even if the trial court

did not articulate the correct theory. De La Paz v. State, 27 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009).

      Mr. Said first argues that the trial court should have excluded all evidence

concerning allegations of sexual abuse and retaliation because this evidence has no

probative value and constitutes improper character evidence in violation of rule

404(b). But Mr. Said was the first party to elicit evidence related to those subjects.

During his cross-examination of Patricia’s sister, Connie, Mr. Said’s counsel asked

if there was a period of time when the sisters were not close. Connie responded that

                                         –5–
there was, and when asked when, Connie said, “When [A.S.] accused [Mr. Said] of

sexual assault.”

      Upon receiving that answer, Mr. Said’s counsel asked to approach the bench,

and the trial court conducted a brief bench conference. Mr. Said asked for a running

objection to any testimony concerning the sexual abuse allegations on grounds that

such testimony violated the trial court’s pretrial ruling on his motion to exclude

extraneous offense evidence. The trial court denied that request, noting both that Mr.

Said had elicited the testimony at issue and that its pretrial ruling allowed evidence

of the girls’ outcry as long as it did not detail the substance of the alleged sexual

abuse. The trial court told Mr. Said he could get into the specifics of the abuse if he

wished, and when Mr. Said resumed his cross-examination, he elicited further

testimony concerning both the strength of the evidence supporting the sexual assault

allegations and the girls’ eventual recantations of those allegations.

      Here, by first eliciting testimony concerning the sexual abuse allegations and

subsequent recantations, Mr. Said waived any objection to the State introducing

similar testimony on those subjects. See Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 35 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993) (error regarding improperly admitted evidence is waived if that

same evidence is brought in later by the defendant or by the State without objection);

see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (defendant

cannot complain about evidence he first elicits).

                                         –6–
        Mr. Said likewise “opened the door” for the State to present evidence

concerning his previous threat to kill Patricia—the subject of the 1998 retaliation

charge. See Porter v. State, No. 05-19-00194-CR, 2022 WL 16735369, at *7 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Nov. 7, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(citing TEX. R. EVID. 107). Patricia testified that Mr. Said threatened to kill her and

her family if she did not have the sexual abuse charges dropped. She also explained

that the retaliation case was based on those threats1 and that the girls recanted their

allegations. Connie testified that A.S. told her she was forced to recant the sexual

abuse allegations and that her recantation was a lie. Evidence concerning the threats

against Patricia was thus admissible to offer a complete presentation of the evidence

relating to the girls recanting their sexual abuse allegations. See id.

        Mr. Said next challenges the trial court’s ruling to allow evidence of his prior

abuse towards Patricia because the State failed to elicit evidence demonstrating the

girls ever saw or knew of it. Under the doctrine of “conditional relevancy,” a trial

court may admit seemingly irrelevant evidence on the condition that the proponent

later introduces additional evidence demonstrating its relevancy. See TEX. R. EVID.

104(b); Powell v. State, 898 S.W.2d 821, 829 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Rawlins v.

State, 521 S.W.3d 863, 868 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d). The

trial court denied Mr. Said’s motion to exclude this evidence at a pretrial hearing

    1
     Both Mr. Said and the State reference in their arguments an allegation that Mr. Said told Patricia he
would kill her and “never be found,” but neither party cites to anywhere in the record showing that the
“never be found” portion of the statement actually came into evidence.
                                                  –7–
based on the State’s representation that it would make the connection if it needed to

bring in that evidence. But after the evidence came in, Mr. Said neither renewed his

original objection nor asked the court for an instruction to disregard the testimony at

the close of the State’s evidence and thus he has not preserved the issue for our

review. See Powell, 898 S.W.2d at 829; Rawlins, 521 S.W.3d at 868–69.

      Had he preserved an objection, any error in allowing the evidence was

harmless. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2018) (“we consider: (1) the character of the alleged error and how it

might be considered in connection with other evidence; (2) the nature of the

evidence supporting the verdict; (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence

indicating guilt; and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained of error.”).

      Patricia testified only generally that she left Mr. Said several times over the

years because he “was controlling, abusive.” And in response to questions

concerning why she returned to Mr. Said after the alleged sexual abuse and threats

of retaliation, Patricia testified that Mr. Said “was abusive” and that she was “scared

of getting hurt.” She did not detail specific instances of abuse, the State did not

emphasize the testimony, and the evidence of Mr. Said’s guilt was overwhelming,

including S.S.’s desperate, dying 911 call specifically identifying him as her killer

fulfilling A.S.’s email prediction days earlier. Based on our examination of the

record as a whole, we are confident that Patricia’s general statements about Mr. Said

                                         –8–
being controlling and abusive had no more than a slight influence on the jury. See

id.

      Mr. Said next contends the trial court abused its discretion by allowing

testimony that Mr. Said threatened A.S. with a gun in the weeks before the murders.

At the hearing on his motion to exclude, Mr. Said argued that the evidence was

irrelevant, that the only person who could attest to it was an “inherently unreliable

witness,” and that “it would only arouse the jury’s hostility against the defendant

and confuse the issues.” On appeal, however, Mr. Said argues that the trial court

should have excluded the testimony both because it was inadmissible hearsay and

because it was more prejudicial than probative.

      As an initial matter, Mr. Said failed to preserve his hearsay complaint by

making a timely objection in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); see also

Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (point of error on appeal

must comport with trial objection). With respect to his complaint that the testimony

was unfairly prejudicial for purposes of rule 403, A.S.’s boyfriend, E.P., testified that

shortly before the murders, A.S. told him Mr. Said had pulled a gun on her and

threatened to kill her, which is why the group decided to flee the state. Patricia

testified that S.S. told her Mr. Said had threatened A.S. with a gun. This evidence

was highly probative of both Mr. Said’s identity as A.S.’s killer and his intent to

commit the murders. We can discern nothing unfairly prejudicial about introducing

evidence that an accused threatened to kill the victim with a gun shortly before the

                                          –9–
victim was found shot to death. In any event, rule 403 requires exclusion of probative

evidence only if “there is a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice” and the

evidence’s probative value. Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 568 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009). There is no such disparity here.

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                            /Cory L. Carlyle//
220791f.u05                                 CORY L. CARLYLE
Do Not Publish                              JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                          –10–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

YASER ABDEL SAID, Appellant                   On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                              Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00791-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F08-33908-Y.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
                                              participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 21st day of December, 2023.

                                       –11–