Felix Rocha v. Texas
The evidence shows the following:
On November 26, 1994, Rafael Fuentes, the
decedent, was working as a security guard at La Camelia, a
nightclub in Harris County. Reynaldo Munoz, who owned some pool
tables at the nightclub, arrived at around 7:00 p.m. Munoz talked
to Fuentes for ten to fifteen minutes while Fuentes stood at the
door to the club. Munoz noticed that Fuentes was wearing a holster
containing a gun. Two men, a tall man and a short man, moved
quickly toward Fuentes. Munoz moved out of the way as Fuentes
stopped the men to conduct a search. Munoz saw the tall man raise
his arms as if to permit a frisk. Then Munoz watched the short man
pull out a gun, point the gun at Fuentes, demand Fuentes' gun,(3)
and reach for Fuentes' gun. At that point, Munoz began to flee the
scene and did not see what happened next. As he fled, Munoz heard
two or three gunshots.
A police radio dispatch informed patrol officer
Michael Junco of a shooting in progress. Junco arrived at the
scene to find Fuentes' body with gunshot wounds. Junco noticed
that there was no gun in Fuentes' holster.
The tall man was later identified as Virgilio
Maldonado. The short man was believed by law enforcement officials
to be appellant. Houston Police Officer X.
E. Avila interviewed appellant. In his oral statements, appellant
gave the following version of events: Appellant and Fuentes had
been involved in an altercation at some time prior to the murder.
Fuentes had beaten and otherwise embarrassed appellant, and
appellant had vowed to get revenge. On the night of the killing,
appellant and Maldonado confronted Fuentes. Appellant intended to
take Fuentes' gun to embarrass him and show that Fuentes was not a
good security guard. Appellant pulled his own gun on Fuentes, and
Fuentes grabbed appellant's gun. Then appellant and Fuentes
struggled over appellant's gun, and appellant's gun was shot once
during the struggle. Appellant did not know whether the shot hit
Fuentes or simply went into the air. Maldonado shot Fuentes
several times to protect appellant. Maldonado then took Fuentes'
gun, and appellant and Maldonado fled the scene.
The corpus delicti for robbery was established
by the testimony of Munoz and Junco. Munoz's testimony established
that Fuentes was carrying a gun in his holster prior to being shot,
that he was confronted by two persons, that one of these persons
demanded and reached for Fuentes' gun, and that a shooting
occurred afterwards. Junco's testimony established that Fuentes
had been shot and that his gun was missing shortly after the
shooting had occurred. This evidence tends to show that Fuentes'
gun was stolen during a physical attack upon him and that the
physical attack culminated in a murder.
|