Juan Reyes, Jr. v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-15-00178-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 29, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Juan Reyes, Jr. is the appellant in a case involving his conviction for Capital Murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.03, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on February 12, 2015. He filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and the trial court certified his right to appeal. The key issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying Reyes' request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of felony murder. The brief identifies all parties and their respective counsel involved in the trial and appeal, ensuring compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a) to identify potential disqualifications of judges. The document includes a structured outline featuring sections such as the Statement of the Case, Issue Presented, and Arguments, with references to applicable legal standards and relevant case law.

Appellant Reyes was indicted on July 20, 2011, for the capital murder of Terry Todd, stemming from incidents on July 5, 2011, where Reyes allegedly shot Todd during the commission of burglary and robbery. Following a jury trial that commenced on February 9, 2015, in the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Reyes was found guilty on February 12, 2015, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Reyes filed a Notice of Appeal on the same day.

On July 5, 2011, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Harris County Sheriff's Office responded to a shooting at Beaumont Highway, where Todd was found dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. Evidence of a burglary was discovered at the scene, along with tire tracks indicating pursuit of Todd's truck. Investigators linked Reyes to the crime through surveillance footage of him using Todd's credit cards and fingerprint evidence from gas pumps.

At trial, witnesses Ronald Heard and Rodrigo Montalvo testified about the events surrounding the shooting. Montalvo described seeing two trucks and hearing gunshots, while Heard recounted seeing two Hispanic men flee the scene. Forensic expert Gail Mills suggested possible struggle or deflection of the gun, and the medical examiner confirmed Todd's death was due to a single gunshot wound. Reyes objected to the jury charge for not including an instruction on the lesser included offense of felony murder, but the court overruled this objection.

The trial court erred by denying Appellant Reyes' request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of felony murder. Testimony regarding Reyes' specific intent to kill was inconsistent, indicating that a properly instructed jury could have found him guilty only of felony murder. Following the presentation of evidence, the court proposed a jury charge to both the state and defense, to which the defense objected, requesting an instruction on felony murder; however, the court overruled this objection.

The appellate court's review of jury charge error follows a two-step process: first, determining if an error exists, and second, evaluating whether sufficient harm from the error necessitates reversal. The Court of Criminal Appeals utilizes a two-pronged test to assess entitlement to a lesser-included offense instruction. The first prong establishes whether the requested offense is a lesser included offense of the charged offense, which is a legal question independent of trial evidence. The second prong assesses if evidence exists from which a rational jury could acquit the defendant of the greater offense while convicting him of the lesser.

Felony murder qualifies as a lesser included offense of capital murder, as its elements are encompassed within the proof necessary for capital murder committed during a robbery or burglary. Reyes argues that the trial evidence warranted a jury instruction on felony murder based on the presence of sufficient evidence that could rationally support a finding of guilt only for felony murder. The threshold for such evidence is low, allowing for any evidence beyond a scintilla to qualify. However, the court must consider only evidence directly relevant to the lesser included offense when determining the necessity of an instruction, regardless of its credibility or conflict with other evidence.

Felony murder involves an unintentional killing occurring during the commission of a felony, while capital murder is defined as an intentional killing during a robbery or burglary. The critical distinction between the two is the presence of intent to kill in capital murder cases. The jury in this case received proper instructions regarding the intent required for capital murder. Reyes argues that the sole direct evidence for establishing intent to kill came from witness Rodrigo Montalvo, who observed two men in trucks near the scene of the incident. Montalvo testified that he heard gunshots and saw one of the men return to the vehicle to shoot the victim again, indicating a potential intent to kill. However, Montalvo's reliability is questioned due to his failing eyesight and the blurry nature of the photos he viewed during cross-examination. 

Testimony from another witness, Ronald Heard, contradicted Montalvo's account, as he did not see either man near the victim's body and reported seeing the men flee without any specific actions indicating intent to kill. Additionally, crime scene investigator Gail Mills provided evidence that all recovered shell casings were on the victim's passenger side, contradicting Montalvo's claim that the gunman shot the victim as he opened the driver's side door. Mills noted potential signs of a struggle, such as bruising on the victim’s hands, but could not determine the sequence of shots fired. The discrepancies between witness testimonies and the physical evidence at the crime scene challenge the assertion of specific intent to kill attributed to Reyes.

Reyes argues that the evidence surrounding his intent to kill during the burglary and robbery is open to various interpretations. He notes that Montalvo, the sole eyewitness, had visual impairments that could undermine the reliability of his testimony. The absence of concrete evidence regarding the circumstances of the shooting allows for the possibility that the fatal shot resulted from a struggle over the gun, suggesting a lack of intent to kill. Reyes' defense counsel urged the jury to assess the intent to kill based on the evidence presented. The failure to provide a jury instruction on felony murder deprived the jury of the option to consider it as a lesser offense, forcing them to choose between capital murder and acquittal. Reyes asserts that this omission was an error that violated his right to due process and a fair trial. He requests that the court reverse and remand the decision due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on felony murder. The brief concludes with compliance and service certifications by counsel Joseph Salhab.