In Re: Eapthern Joseph Smith--Appeal from of County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2002 » In Re: Eapthern Joseph Smith--Appeal from of County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-02-00142-CV

Case Date: 10/01/2002

Plaintiff: Po'well Bin Imam Muhammad a/k/a Tommy Powell

Defendant: Director of T.D.C.J.-I.D., et al--Appeal from 349th District Court of Anderson County

Preview:Hernando Estrada Ramirez v. The State of Texas--
Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00078-CR
Hernando Estrada Ramirez,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 2003-745-C
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Hernando Ramirez was convicted of murder. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 19.02 (Vernon 2003). The jury assessed punishment
at ninety-nine years and a $10,000 fine. Ramirez argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his
attempts to stab other persons at the scene of the alleged crime. We will overrule his issue and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The victim was stabbed with a knife and killed outside the El Ranchito Bar. Several witnesses testified for the State.
Two witnesses testified to having seen Ramirez stab the victim. One of those witnesses testified that Ramirez went to a
car, came back with a knife, and was swinging the knife around at a group of people. Ramirez then stabbed the victim.
The other witness to the stabbing was the victim s brother. He testified that Ramirez returned from the car and stabbed
the victim in the back on his right shoulder blade. He testified that when he and several of his cousins tried to confront
Ramirez after the stabbing, Ramirez turned around and chased them with the knife, threatening to stab them.
Ramirez argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony regarding his attempts to stab other persons. A trial
court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1994). We will not reverse the trial court s ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 535
S.W.2d 637, 639-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 404(b) states that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove
the character of a person to show action in conformity therewith. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). But the other crime, wrong, or
act may have relevance apart from character conformity; that it tends to establish some elemental fact, such as identity
or intent; that it tends to establish some evidentiary fact, such as motive, opportunity or preparation, leading
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6324.html[8/20/2013 7:20:37 PM]

inferentially to an elemental fact; or that it rebuts a defensive theory by showing, e.g., absence of mistake or accident.
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Additionally, same transaction contextual
evidence is admissible when it is necessary to the jury s understanding of the offense. Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29,
33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). As a general rule, the jury is entitled to know all relevant surrounding facts and
circumstances of the charged offense. Moreno v. State, 721 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Same transaction
contextual evidence is considered res gestae, under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum, and the jury
has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that it may
realistically evaluate the evidence. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
The testimony challenged by Ramirez relates to his behavior minutes before and after the alleged offense occurred.
One of the issues at trial was whether Ramirez was the person who stabbed the victim. The testimony was relevant and
necessary to the jury s determination of what occurred. Because the testimony was admissible as same transaction
contextual evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
CONCLUSION
We overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2005
Do not publish
[CRPM]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6324.html[8/20/2013 7:20:37 PM]

Download 6324.pdf