Court Opinion

ID: 9682590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:30.036913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.275973
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
We first consider appellant Israel Morales’s motion for rehearing, having concluded that we must examine each appellant’s motion for rehearing separately.
When Israel took the stand, and admitted that he stabbed the deceased he testified that Brijido had not been involved in the fight, except to attempt to separate him from the deceased. He specifically denied that Brijido had kicked the deceased.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Israel if he remembered saying in a ■prior written statement, “I kicked the boy and so did Brijido.” Israel replied that he was nervous when he made the statement, and that he did not know what he had said. No objection was made to the cross-examination.
On redirect examination, Israel’s attorney introduced his entire written confession, which was consistent with appellant’s testimony, with the exception of the statement about Brijido.
When appellant’s counsel introduced his confession, he waived any complaints that he might have regarding the voluntariness of said confession. The only apparent reason for introducing the confession was to bolster the appellant’s credibility as the confession supported his testimony in all respects except for the collateral matter used for impeachment.
Appellant Israel contends that his introduction of the written confession was required by the State’s use of that confession to impeach his testimony. He contends that such use was improper, because the State had not adequately shown that Israel had been given all the Miranda warnings and affirmatively waived each and every right guaranteed to him under Miranda. He does not contend that his confession was coerced or involuntary.
In Harris v. New York (February 24, 1971), 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed. 2d 1, the United States Supreme Court held that a confession not admissible as direct evidence under the Miranda holding was admissible to impeach the testimony of the appellant.
Under the holding in Harris v. New York, supra, we need not decide whether the warnings given to appellant Israel met all the requirements of Miranda. Portions of this confession were properly admitted to impeach his testimony, and no error has thus been shown as to Israel Morales.
In consideration of all the evidence in this case, including an eye-witness’s identification of Israel Morales as the murderer, we cannot hold that the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury on the voluntariness of Israel’s confession was reversible error. His motion for rehearing is overruled.
We now consider the motion for rehearing of appellant Brijido Pena.
The unfortunate fact about this case, which distinguishes it from all others that have come to our attention, is that one lawyer represented all three appellants. He repeatedly requested that a hearing be held out of the presence of the jury on the voluntariness of each of the appellants’ confessions. His objections and requests are found on five pages of the record. The following is an example:
“If the Court please, may we approach the bench. I think at this time—I think being that the knife may have been located from information received from the Defendant, we are going to object to any further testimony until we have a separate hearing to see if any voluntary *301statements were made to see if they were truly voluntary.”
At another place, counsel stated, “No, we have asked for an independent hearing.” Still later, he said, “If the Court please, I want the record to show that we have asked for a separate hearing on the admissibility of the confessions which I assume the court is denying to us at this time.”
Not one word from the appellant Brijido had been heard by the jury before these repeated requests were made and denied. After they were denied, Chief Gonzales testified that Brijido said, “He had been wanting to get it off his mind since Saturday [the day of the offense].” It should be noted that all the testimony regarding the voluntariness of Brijido’s written and oral confessions was heard by the jury. In addition, most of the discussions between the lawyers and the court were had in front of the jury. As a result, the entire jury learned that Brijido had given a written incul-patory statement and had made oral in-culpatory statements. They also learned that Israel had made statements which seriously implicated Brijido.
Had the hearing on voluntariness been had out of the presence of the jury, as requested by appellants’ counsel, none of this would have been before the jury. This is particularly damaging evidence in this case as neither of the two eye-witnesses, both young girls, testified to any specific act done by Brijido. In addition, Israel Morales testified that Brijido had not participated in the fight. Finally, Brijido did not testify. His oral statement was of vital importance to the State in corroborating the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and in adding credibility to their testimony.
In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, the United States Supreme Court held that the trial court must hear evidence, outside the presence of the jury on the voluntariness of any in-custody statement made by the defendant to police officers and make a finding that the statement was given Voluntarily, before the statement may be presented to the jury.
Following the holding in Jackson, supra, this Court said in Lopez v. State, 384 S.W.2d 345, 348:
“In new trials arising hereunder and in future trials in this state where there is a fair question of voluntariness of a confession of the defendant, the trial judge shall grant to the defendant the opportunity to object to the use of said confession; shall grant a fair hearing before the Court on the issue of voluntariness, and from all of the evidence, and without regard to the truth or falsity of the confession, shall make a clear cut determination of the voluntariness of the confession, including the resolution of disputed facts upon which the voluntariness issue may depend. Upon request, such hearing shall be held and the court’s ruling made in the absence of the jury. Unless the trial judge is satisfied that the confession was voluntarily made he shall exclude it.”
See also McIlwain v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 916; Treadway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 572; Smith v. State, 5 Cir., 395 F.2d 958; and Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593.
As stated in Judge Douglas’s opinion on original submission, oral confessions are subject to the same standards of voluntariness as those applied to written confessions. Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 328. See Art. 38.22(a) (2), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
Brijido’s oral inculpatory statement should not have been admitted before the jury until the court had first determined its admissibility, and the testimony regarding the voluntariness of his confessions should not have been had in the jury’s presence. As we are unable to conclude that this error was harmless, as to appellant Brijido Pena, beyond a reasonable doubt, we must grant Pena’s motion for rehearing. The judgment of affirmance of his conviction is set *302aside, and the judgment, as to appellant Pena, is reversed and remanded.
We finally consider the motion for rehearing of Juan Morales.
Appellant Juan Morales contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction as a principal to murder with malice. The evidence may be summarized as follows :
Brijido Pena and Israel, Rene, and Juan Morales, all young men, riding in Israel’s automobile, took a friend home from work. They then decided to see the body of a friend at a funeral home in Weslaco, where none of the parties resided. They inquired as to where a funeral home was located in Weslaco, discovered that their friend’s body was not there, then they went in search of the other funeral home. At some point, they passed a group of boys who were standing near the street singing and had some conversation with them which was apparently of an .unfriendly nature.
They then passed by the girl friend of the deceased in the case at bar, Maricela, age fourteen, who was, at that time, walking with a friend of hers. One of the young men in the car hollered at them, but Maricela did not hear what he said. A short time later, the four again passed by Maricela, this time she was standing on a corner with her younger sister, Elma, and with the deceased, Juan Ayala, who was eighteen years old. Rene yelled to Maricela, “Hey you, with the yellow shirt tail.”
The young men in the car then came upon two other girls walking and two of the men got out and walked with them.
Later, the four young men again passed by the deceased and the two girls, and stopped the car. At this point, there is a conflict in the testimony between the testimony of the State’s witness, Maricela, and that of Israel Morales, who was the only defendant to testify. According to Maricela’s testimony, Juan got out of the car and told Ayala that he had too many girls. In her testimony, Maricela states at one point that the person who got out of the car first was the first to hit Ayala with his fist. However, her testimony varies as to who got out of the car first, Israel or Juan, and who was the first to hit Ayala.
Maricela stated that Israel got out of the car and so did Brijido. All three were engaged in a fist fight with Ayala, but Maricela could not tell who was doing what to Ayala, as she.had her back to the fight and was standing between Rene and the fight. She testified that Rene never entered into the fight (Rene was not indicted). Ayala was trying to fight back. Maricela glanced back at the fight and saw Israel holding a pocket knife in a slanted position, told the men that she was going to call the police, and then ran to call the police. While she was running, she looked back and saw that the four young men were getting into their car. The four then left the scene. She testified that Israel did not have a knife in his hand when he got out of the car and that she could not say whether, during the course of the brief fight, Ayala ever fell to the ground, but he was “slumped” and had blood on his shirt when she came back to him. At that time she could not tell that he had been cut badly.
Elma testified, in far less detail, to the same facts. She saw one of the appellants kick the deceased but that she did not know which one. She did not see a knife.
Israel Morales testified as follows regarding the fight: Rene got out of the car first and said that Ayala had too many girls Then he (Israel) got out of the auto and he was followed by Brijido. Juan never got out of the car. Maricela was standing between Brijido and the fight and Brijido’s only participation in the fight was to try to separate Israel and the deceased when Israel pulled out the knife. Israel stabbed Ayala one time, then they all got back into the car and drove away. The whole fight lasted only about one minute. All the parties in the car asked Israel why he had done it, and he replied, “I don’t know.” They did not find out that Ayala had died until several days later.
*303Israel testified that none of the four knew Ayala, Maricela or Elma. He further testified that he had not talked to the others about “knifing this guy down” before they got out of the car, that they had not made any plans to do anything to the deceased, that they had not conspired together, and that the other three did not even know that he had the knife with him.
A pathologist testified that the deceased died as a result of one stab wound which penetrated the heart. Additionally, the testimony from various witnesses showed that Juan and Israel had excellant reputations and that neither Israel nor Brijido had been in any fights or gotten into trouble before.
There was no showing in this record that Juan knew that Israel was armed or that he agreed with him to do any more than harass a boy who had more girls than they did. As Judge Beauchamp said in his concurring opinion in Montalbo v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 140, 166 S.W.2d 694, “The conflict arose without any chance for planned action, past or present, or joint understanding about the end to be accomplished.” Judge Hawkins said in the same case, “There is no hint in the evidence even that any previously formed design existed among the three appellants to kill Roquet and Rodriguez or any other person when they went to the scene of the difficulty. The evidence is positive that Mauro Montalbo actually did the killing.”
The case more nearly akin to the case at bar against Juan is Thacker v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 664, 101 S.W.2d 247. On original submission, Thacker’s conviction was upheld as was that of his companion Harris in an earlier volume. On rehearing, Presiding Judge Morrow then reviewed the testimony and concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to show that Thacker was a principal. On the State’s motion for rehearing, Judge Hawkins again reviewed the record and concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to show that Thacker had acted as principal in the killing.
Knowledge of the intent to kill the deceased is a necessary element to constitute Juan as a principal in this murder with malice. Of course, this knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing. However, in the case at bar, all circumstances militate against an inference that Juan knew of Israel’s intent to kill Juan Ayala. There is no evidence that Juan knew that Israel had a knife in his possession. One of the eye-witnesses testified that Israel did not display the knife until the instant that he killed Ayala; the other eye-witness never saw the knife at all. Israel testified that he did not remove the knife from his pocket until just before he stabbed Ayala, and that Juan did not know that he had the knife with him. There is no showing that Israel had ever been involved in a knife fight; all the testimony shows that he had never been in any fights. There is no showing of any prior difficulties between Juan and the deceased or of any reason why Juan should enter into a plan to kill the'deceased. All the evidence shows that the deceased and his assailants did not know one another. Finally, it would appear from all the evidence that any intent that Israel may have had to kill the deceased arose during the brief fight, and that Israel in no way communicated his intentions to Juan, or, indeed, to any of the participants in or observers of the fight.
The State contends that the murder by stabbing of Juan Ayala was a natural and probable consequence of the brief fight between him and appellants, and that therefore, all participants in the fight must be held liable as principals to the murder. In every case that the writer has been able to find where a participant in a fist fight was held liable for the murder of one who died during the fight, there was evidence that the appellant actually struck the fatal blow; the deceased began to beg for mercy while the appellant was beating him or holding him for another person to beat, stab or shoot; or there was a showing of prior malice between the appellant and the deceased or a stated plan to do great harm *304to the deceased. This record is completely void of any such evidence. To the contrary, all the evidence shows that none of these circumstances existed.
Having concluded' that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of Juan Morales as a principal to murder with malice, his motion for rehearing is granted. Thacker, supra, Mowery v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 105 S.W.2d 239; Montalbo v. State, supra; Lee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 214 S.W.2d 619. Cf. Buckley v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 378, 181 S.W. 729. The judgment of affirmance as to Juan Morales is set aside, and his cause is reversed and remanded.