Page 35 - TPA Journal March April 2023

especially true when one considers that Appellant “guilty” in the second interview, he was claiming
tested positive for gunshot residue. And he had what might have amounted to self-defense.85
already at least impliedly admitted to possessing a Regardless, Appellant admitted during the first
gun and knowing its location when he told a state interview that there was a crime that ha[d] to be
trooper that he had already thrown the gun away. punished,” also an arguable admission of guilt.
And then there were the more incriminating facts Appellant argues that the second interview was
admitted in the early part of the second interview: crucial because it supplied the only evidence
that Appellant fired the gun, was “guilty,” and that the shooting occurred during a robbery or
tried to rob the Vega family because he was attempted robbery. We disagree. Although it
threatened. This further attenuates any would seem helpful to the State to have evidence
significance attaching to the allegedly that accosting the Vega family was part of a
inadmissible statements. We conclude beyond a robbery or attempted robbery, what else could it
reasonable doubt that any error in admitting the have been? We have said that it is an “unlikely
latter portion of the first interview and the latter supposition” that there exists “a motive-less
portion of the second interview did not contribute killer.” Appellant’s statements in the earlier part
to the jury’s determination of his guilt or of the first interview did not supply any possible
punishment and, therefore, was harmless. motive other than greed. Appellant did not know
the victim or any of the other people with him. It
But what if the incriminating facts in the earlier is apparent from the interview that he did not even
part of the second interview were added to know that Harvey was a border patrol agent. The
Appellant’s side of the ledger instead of to the red SUV initially following the Vega family
State’s? That is, what if we were to hold that the vehicles, backing away, and then returning later is
entire second interview was inadmissible due to consistent with casing the Vega family and the
Ranger Vega’s delay in honoring Appellant’s fishing site for a robbery. Commanding the Vega
request to pause the first interview? The errors family to get on the ground is consistent with
would still be harmless beyond a reasonable attempting to facilitate the theft of property (and
doubt. Although the facts elicited in the second thus a robbery). Appellant was not able to do more
interview were far more incriminating than the to effectuate a robbery because the intended
facts elicited in the latter part of the first interview, victims did something he did not expect—they
the facts elicited in the earlier part of the first shot back. We do not harbor any reasonable doubt
interview were of primary importance. The jury about what the jury would conclude this was—an
had undisputed evidence that Harvey was shot and attempt to rob the Vega family that was thwarted
killed, and it had the testimony of three by the Vega family fighting back.
eyewitnesses that the driver of the red SUV was
the shooter. Plus, it had the evidence of gunshot Appellant contends that his recorded statements
residue on Appellant’s hands. With the second were inadmissible in their entirety because
interview, Appellant at least had his self-serving they were coerced, in violation of due process. He
claim that he did not shoot first but shot back. contends that his statement bears the hallmarks of
Without that interview in evidence, Appellant’s coercion because he was physically attacked by
position would appear to have been that only the border patrol officers, did not receive medical
Vega family did the shooting. That was a totally care, was told that people had threatened to kill
implausible position, given the undisputed fact of him, was in fear of his life, had not been given
Harvey’s death, the injury suffered by Harvey’s food, and had not been allowed to sleep. He also
father, and the gunshot residue on Appellant’s complains that he was not informed of his right to
hands. And while Appellant admitted to being contact the Mexican consulate in violation of

March-April 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 31