Jesus Martinez Jr. v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-21-00191-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 30, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jesus Martinez Jr. was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He appealed the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion for his detention. The case stems from a report of a Hispanic male with a gun at a McDonald's on September 21, 2018. Officer Elizabeth McClain interviewed three restaurant employees—Cory Rosas, Lola Perez, and Anestacio Perez—who described an encounter with a man who claimed Lola owed him money for synthetic marijuana. The man displayed a gun and threatened Rosas. The witnesses described the suspect as a bald Hispanic male with tattoos, wearing camouflage pants and a blue shirt. Surveillance footage corroborated the witnesses' descriptions but did not clearly identify Martinez. The jury also found Martinez guilty of tampering with evidence, although the State abandoned this charge before sentencing. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the motion to suppress.

Garcia, an off-duty officer, reported observing a suspect fitting a dispatch description of a Hispanic male with a gun near McDonald's shortly after the initial call. The suspect was noted to wear a black shirt and camo pants while carrying a McDonald's cup, and was the only person in the vicinity. When approached by another officer, the suspect turned but continued walking. Garcia then detained the suspect, later identified as Martinez, who was found with a loaded handgun. During his testimony, Garcia noted Martinez's aggressive demeanor and identified his tattoos, although he later acknowledged discrepancies regarding the suspect's physical description compared to the initial report. The trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered during the detention, and Martinez was subsequently convicted of capital murder.

The legal framework surrounding the case highlights the constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures, establishing that a brief investigative detention requires "reasonable suspicion" based on specific, articulable facts. The assessment of reasonable suspicion relies on the totality of the circumstances, focusing on the combination of facts that may imply criminal activity, rather than on isolated actions. The trial court's rulings on suppression motions are reviewed with deference to factual determinations and a de novo standard for legal questions.

The standard of review for determining reasonable suspicion based on historical facts is de novo. A trial court's ruling is upheld if supported by the record and correct under any applicable legal theory. Martinez argues that his detention lacked reasonable suspicion because he did not match the witnesses' physical descriptions, specifically regarding being bald and having face tattoos. He contends it is unreasonable for an officer to selectively apply aspects of a description for reasonable suspicion. However, he fails to demonstrate how the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress affected his conviction or punishment, lacking clarity on what evidence would have been excluded or its role in the jury's decision. Under Texas law, if constitutional error is identified but deemed harmless, the conviction is not automatically reversed. The reliability of citizen informants, especially those placing themselves at risk of identification, is acknowledged. Furthermore, when multiple officers collaborate, their combined information is relevant for assessing reasonable suspicion. In this case, three witnesses at a McDonald's described a short, bald Hispanic male in camouflage pants who threatened them with a handgun, with minor discrepancies in their accounts regarding tattoos and the shirt's color. These varied descriptions were communicated to law enforcement, supporting the basis for reasonable suspicion.

Garcia detained Martinez based on several observations: Martinez wore camouflage pants, carried a McDonald's cup, and was the only pedestrian nearby. Garcia noted that the timeframe corresponded with witnesses who had seen Martinez close to a McDonald's. When another officer arrived with emergency lights activated, Martinez looked at her but continued walking away. Under Texas Penal Code § 38.04, a person commits an offense if they intentionally flee from a peace officer attempting a lawful detention. Although Martinez lacked face tattoos and wore a black shirt, he matched other key characteristics mentioned by witnesses, including ethnicity, height, arm tattoos, and distinctive pants. Martinez did not provide legal authority to support his claim that an exact match to the informant's description was necessary for reasonable suspicion. The testimony from the suppression hearing indicated that Garcia had specific, articulable facts leading to a reasonable conclusion that Martinez was involved in criminal activity. Therefore, the court found reasonable suspicion for detaining Martinez and denied his motion to suppress. The appeal was overruled, affirming the trial court's judgment. Martinez also claimed he did not match the description because he was not "bald," but this assertion lacked supporting witness testimony.