Opinion
No. 08-15-00226-CR
11-18-2016
DAGOBERTO CASTANON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F-1475954-J) OPINION
This case is one of three companion cases arising out of a police chase that ended in a car crash in Carrolton, Texas. In brief, Appellant, while fleeing from police after running a stop sign in a stolen minivan, crashed into a vehicle occupied by Sandy Vasquez and her thirteen-year-old son, Ethan. Sandy Vasquez was seriously injured; Ethan was killed.
We hear this case on transfer from the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas.
Appellant entered an open guilty plea before the trial court to one count of murdering Ethan Vasquez, one count of failing to stop and render aid to Ethan Vasquez, and one count of failing to stop and render aid to Sandy Vasquez. Appellant asked that his punishment be assessed at a bench trial. After consolidating the three cases into one punishment trial, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 60 years' in prison for the murder, and five years' for each count of failure to stop and render aid. This particular appeal concerns the punishment verdict related to Appellant's failure to stop and render aid to Sandy Vasquez.
In one issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting several accident reconstruction animations submitted by the State. According to Appellant, the prejudicial effects of the videos outweighed their probative value. We find no harmful error in the admission of these animations. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In Trial Cause No. F-1475954-J, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to failing to stop and render aid to Sandy Vasquez. The State's case at punishment consisted of two segments: one aimed at providing information about the severity of the crash, and one detailing Appellant's prior bad acts and criminal history.
Crash Reconstruction and Video Animations
At trial, Highland Park Police Department Officer Mike Donahoe described the events leading up to the crash. While observing a four-way intersection as part of his traffic patrol duties, Officer Donahoe observed a blue minivan fail to stop at a stop sign. He turned on the overhead lights of his patrol car in order to initiate a traffic stop. The blue minivan began to evade him at a high speed, cutting across several lanes of major roadway going the wrong way, making U-turns, and weaving its way through heavy traffic. Officer Donahoe pursued the minivan, but ultimately ended his pursuit after the minivan turned into a residential area. He advised the Dallas Police Department of the situation, then decided to look for the minivan in a non-pursuit capacity. While searching for the minivan, Officer Donahoe encountered the aftermath of a three-vehicle crash involving the minivan, a sedan, and an SUV. The driver of the minivan was nowhere to be seen. Officer Donahoe determined that a man found stumbling at the scene was the driver of the SUV that had been hit. Officer Donahoe also observed a woman—Sandra Vasquez—in the driver seat of the black sedan, slumped over into the passenger side of the car, her breathing labored. As Officer Donahoe and others worked to open the heavily-damaged car door, they observed a child—her son, Ethan—in the back seat under an airbag, non-responsive. Ethan was later pronounced dead. Sandra suffered serious bodily injuries. Officer Donahoe's dashcam video depicting his pursuit of the blue minivan and the aftermath of the crash, as well as numerous pictures from the crash site, were admitted without objection.
The minivan was later determined to have been stolen.
Although there were no eyewitnesses to the crash who testified at punishment, the State did offer testimony from, and animations created by, Richardson Police Officer Chad Moore explaining how the crash occurred. Officer Moore testified that he had been a member of the RPD Traffic Unit's Crash Team since 2004, had taken classes in advanced crash investigation, and had been trained in crash reconstruction. Officer Moore further testified that he used data points mapped by Dallas Police Department officers to create a diagram, which was admitted without objection. Using that diagram, Officer Moore measured the distances that each vehicle involved in the crash had traveled after being impacted, diagrammed them, and used those distances to calculate momentum, which in turn allowed Officer Moore to determine the minimum speeds of the vehicles involved. Officer Moore also reviewed photographs of the vehicles after the crash, and he went to the scene of the accident in order to measure the coefficient of friction on the street to include in his calculations. On voir dire, Officer Moore admitted that he did not have crush measurements, trajectory points, angles of departure, or other data which would allow him to precisely determine Appellant's speed. To compensate for this, Officer Moore used a momentum-based calculation rather than an energy-based calculation to reach his conclusions, and based on his calculations from the available data, Officer Moore set the animation to the absolute minimum speed that Appellant would have been traveling during the accident based on his calculations.
Over objection, the trial court admitted State's Exhibits 434 through 442—nine animated renderings of the crash. Each animation lasts for five seconds. The animations depict a four-way intersection from different angles, some from overhead, some from ground level. The animations begin by showing a gray SUV stopped in front of a stop sign at one end of the intersection, near a telephone pole. As a black sedan enters the intersection from the SUV's left, a blue minivan approaching the intersection in the oncoming lane opposite the SUV runs a stop sign, enters the intersection, and hits the side of the black sedan from a perpendicular angle. The sedan begins to skid, and the back of the sedan crashes into the front of the SUV. The sedan comes to rest in front of the telephone pole, knocking down a stop sign in the process. Meanwhile, the blue minivan continues to move forward in the lane opposite the SUV, spinning around about one and half times before hitting the back of the SUV and coming to a stop. The animations do not depict people, debris, or physical changes to the cars sustained during the crash.
Other Punishment Evidence from the State
The State continued its punishment case by offering Appellant's prior criminal convictions into evidence. The evidence showed that Appellant had been previously convicted of the following other crimes:
• In 2005, Appellant was adjudicated delinquent in Collin County juvenile proceedings of an unspecified offense and placed on probation;
• On March 17, 2009, Appellant completed deferred adjudication for one count of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and one count of evading arrest in Dallas County, resulting in dismissal of those charges;
• On March 17, 2009, Appellant completed deferred adjudication for one count of evading arrest in Dallas County;
• On July 8, 2010, Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated;
• On December 8, 2011, Appellant was found guilty of theft of property worth between $1,500 and $20,000, and was sentenced to 21 months confinement probated for three years;
• On March 13, 2012, Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated a second time in Dallas County;
• On March 15, 2012, Appellant was found guilty on one count of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in Dallas County;
• On March 15, 2012, was also found guilty of theft of property worth $1,500.
The State concluded its punishment case by putting on evidence of Appellant's immigration history and purported gang ties. Homeland Security Investigations Agent Jared Cronenworth testified that Appellant was ordered removed from the United States in 2012 for criminal behavior, and that the terms of Appellant's removal order stated that he was banned from re-entering the United States for 20 years. Carrollton Police Officer Stephen Lair, a member of the National Gang Unit's taskforce, testified that an informant named Gustavo Rodriguez had relayed information to him regarding Appellant and the Sureno Gang. Officer Lair testified that the gang unit did not have information suggesting that Appellant was a member of the Surenos, but both Appellant and the State stipulated that if the informant Rodriguez had been called to testify, Rodriguez, in exchange for a State recommendation that his probation be terminated early, would have stated that he had personal knowledge that Appellant had sold guns to Sureno gang members. Appellant denied knowing or ever meeting Rodriguez.
Defense's Case
Appellant offered testimony from three witnesses as part of his defense. His mother, Maria Castanon, testified that Appellant had a ninth-grade education, that he worked with his father in the construction business, and that she had never known him to be violent. She believed Appellant had "repented" after this accident, and she asked the court to forgive him. Appellant's girlfriend Cinthia Medina also testified that Appellant was a good person. Finally, testifying on his own behalf, Appellant admitted to his prior crimes, took responsibility for the crash, and apologized to the Vasquez family. However, he denied any gang affiliations.
DISCUSSION
In Issue One, Appellant complains that the admission of the accident reconstruction animations violated TEX.R.EVID. 403 because there was insufficient evidence to show the animations were accurate—thus, the prejudicial effects of the videos necessarily outweighed their probative value. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the accident reconstruction animations, and in any event, we determine that any erroneous admission of the animations did not prejudice Appellant's substantial rights in light of Appellant's open plea and the overwhelming evidence presented during the punishment phase.
While Appellant objected to this same evidence on other grounds, he only urges the Rule 403 argument on appeal. As such, we limit our analysis solely to that issue. --------
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
Evidence is relevant and admissible if it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. TEX.R.EVID. 401. Relevant evidence may nevertheless be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. TEX.R.EVID. 403. We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence under TEX.R.EVID. 403 for abuse of discretion. Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 272 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). We disregard any error in the admission of evidence unless the admission affected the appellant's "substantial rights." TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(b). "A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Carter v. State, 145 S.W.3d 702, 710 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2004, pet. ref'd).
Analysis
Appellant advances two main arguments in opposition to the animations. First, he notes that there were no eyewitnesses to the crash, which makes the accuracy of the animations impossible to verify. Second, Officer Moore lacked crush measurements and trajectory points that would allow him to determine the actual speed at the time of impact. Instead, Officer Moore used "ballpark" minimum speeds, which Appellant contends are speculative and undermine the animations' accuracy. We disagree with both points, and do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting these animations at punishment.
Appellant does not dispute on appeal that Officer Moore was qualified to render an opinion, and he did not object to the admission of diagrams of the accident made from available data points. As the State points out, the five-second animations were all extrapolated from the same data points used to create the diagram. Further, while Officer Moore freely acknowledged that certain pieces of information were unavailable to him at the time he made the animations, he also testified that compensated for the incomplete data by reducing the speed depicted in the animation to a speed that would be supported by the data that was actually available. We agree with Appellant—and with Officer Moore's own assessment—that crush measurements, trajectory points, and other data would have made the animation more precise. However, Appellant failed to establish that Officer Moore could not have created fair and accurate animations from the data actually presented. We also do not see how the brief animations were in any way inflammatory, overly misleading, or otherwise prejudicial. Balancing the Rule 403 factors against the probative value of the animations and reviewing this issue for abuse of discretion, we cannot say that the trial court committed error by taking the animations into consideration at punishment. See Murphy v. State, No. 11-10-00150-CR, 2011 WL 3860444, at *2 (Tex.App.--Eastland Aug. 31, 2011, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication)(finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting traffic reconstruction made by police officer based on observations and assumptions made by him and other officers).
But even if the admission of the accident reconstruction animations was erroneous, Appellant cannot establish that the admission prejudiced his substantial rights for two reasons. First, Appellant judicially admitted to causing the crash during the guilt-innocence phase, and witness testimony and other photographs from the crash site show how severe the impact was. Any effect that the animations may have had on the judge was limited based on other substantial evidence corroborating the general proposition that Appellant crashed a stolen vehicle into the Vasquez's vehicle at a high rate of speed while eluding police, and that as a result, Sandy Vasquez was seriously injured and Ethan Vasquez was killed. Simply put, the animations do little to add or subtract to the undisputed facts of this case.
Second, the scope of evidence the trial court may consider is much broader than the matters considered during guilt-innocence. "[D]uring the punishment phase there are no discrete factual issues; rather, deciding what punishment to assess is a normative process." Dacus v. State, No. 08-08-00026-CR, 2010 WL 546691, at *5 (Tex.App.--El Paso Feb. 17, 2010, pet. ref'd)(not designated for publication). As part of this process, the court may consider any matter it "deems relevant to sentencing, including but not limited to the prior criminal record of the defendant . . . the circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried, and . . . any other evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act that is shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible, regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or finally convicted of the crime or act." TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1)(West Supp. 2016). Against this broad normative backdrop, we cannot say that the animation had a substantial or injurious effect on the trial court's decision. The State introduced evidence of multiple prior convictions, Appellant's prior removal from the United States for criminal violations, Appellant's gang associations, and victim impact testimony. Considered the animations in context, we cannot say that the admission of these animations had a particularly strong effect or otherwise cast grave doubt on the punishment verdict.
There is no reversible error presented on this record.
CONCLUSION
Issue One is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. November 18, 2016
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish)