Page 39 - TPA Journal March April 2023

crime scene was found near the scene of play tricks on you, or trying to put things on your
Appellant’s arrest. head, nor anything like that. Okay? Simply,
Gustavo—it is simply that we already know how
Appellant had gunshot residue on his hands. And the events happened. Look, if you (both) went
without Appellant’s recorded statements, there there, you were going to try to—Let’s say how
would be no evidence that the Vega family shot things are. Okay?—to attack those people or you
first or that Appellant was defending himself. The needed money, or I don’t know; I don’t know what
testimony that Appellant and his accomplice fired your motives were and—Hey, things turned out
shots without provocation would have been wrong because sometimes things turn out wrong
uncontroverted. and shit hit the fan there; the shooting began and
all that shit and then, obviously that you have to
Having rejected all of Appellant’s claims run away.
regarding the admission of his recorded
statements, we overrule points of error three This passage was part of the long explanation that
through seven. Ranger Vela had given Appellant for saying, after
hearing Appellant’s initial story, that the rangers
7. Jury Instruction “know . . . that is not how things happened.” The
… passage was relevant to show the context in which
E. Other Evidentiary Complaints Appellant made various statements in the recorded
1. Extraneous Offense interview. It was also relevant to the issue of the
… voluntariness of Appellant’s recorded interview as
2. Co-Defendant’s Statement a whole, an issue that was submitted to the jury.
These were non-hearsay purposes, as they do not
In point of error twenty, Appellant contends that involve proving the truth of any matters asserted
the trial court erred in admitting a reference by the passenger, and even a non-testifying co-
by Ranger Vela, in Appellant’s first recorded defendant’s statement can be admitted for a non-
interview, to a statement made by Appellant’s hearsay purpose without violating the
passenger, who was a co-defendant. He claims Confrontation Clause. Because the passenger’s
that, because the passenger did not testify and statements were part of Ranger Vela’s questioning,
therefore could not be cross-examined, the it is manifest that the State was not attempting to
admission of this referenceviolated his Sixth introduce the statements to show that the
Amendment right to confrontation. passenger was giving a true account of what
occurred. The record does not reflect whether the
The trial court had ordered redactions of the rangers even talked to the co-defendant, let alone
English translation of the first recorded interview what he told them if they did. It is not an unheard-
to take out statements allegedly made by the of tactic for law enforcement to dissemble about
passenger. Defense counsel objected that the what a suspected accomplice has told them as a
redactions were incomplete and pointed to a ruse to elicit incriminating statements from the
particular passage. He did not request a limiting accused. And the passage at issue here does not
instruction. The passage at issue reads as follows: even recite what the passenger allegedly said
happened. At worst, Ranger Vela conveyed, in a
This guy also talked. He already told me his vague way, that the passenger gave a different
version of how things happened. We are story than Appellant.
not trying to play games with you, or trying to

March-April 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 35