Acevedo v. State

MARTHA ACEVEDO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 08-15-00350-CR

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

November 2, 2018

Appeal from the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D05736)

OPINION

In this appeal, Appellant Martha Acevedo challenges her murder conviction of Jose Acevedo, her husband for over forty-five years. Appellant claims egregious harm in the trial court's failure to include instructions in the jury charge as to the voluntariness of Appellant's inculpatory statements, egregious harm in the trial court's incorrect jury charge instructions regarding the law of self-defense, and ineffective assistance of counsel in handling the alleged jury charge errors regarding the law of self-defense.

BACKGROUND

On the morning of September 25, 2014, the El Paso Sherriff's Office ("EPSO") was notified of the unattended death of Jose Acevedo at his home in San Elizario, Texas. The paramedics who first arrived at the Acevedo residence found Jose's¹ body lying on the living room floor in rigor mortis. He had a ligature mark around his neck from ear to ear, bruising on his nose and cheekbones, and a one-inch laceration with dried blood on his nose. His blood-alcohol content was 0.397 grams per deciliter. The ligature wound on Jose Acevedo's neck was later determined to be the cause of death. Detective Jorge Andrade with the El Paso County Sherriff's Office asked Appellant if she would speak with detectives at the EPSO headquarters. Appellant complied. During a second interview at EPSO headquarters, Appellant confessed to strangulating her husband with an apron by wrapping the apron's top loop around Jose Acevedo's neck. Appellant was indicted for the murder of Jose Acevedo on December 4, 2014. The indictment alleged both that Appellant intentionally and knowingly caused Jose's death by strangling his neck with an apron, and that Appellant committed an act clearly dangerous to human life by strangling Jose with an apron, causing his death.

Pre-Trial

Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession she made to law enforcement, challenging the voluntariness of her inculpatory confession. After a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress.

Appellant, testifying through an interpreter at the suppression hearing, explained that on the morning of September 25, 2014, law enforcement officers placed her in a vehicle and had her wait for what she described as a very long time. She did not speak to Detective Andrade at the Acevedo residence and stated that she was not asked any questions while in the vehicle. Appellant admitted she voluntarily accompanied the officers to EPSO headquarters, that she was not placedin handcuffs, and that she was never told that she did not have to accompany the officers or that she was free to leave.

She asked to use the restroom several times. She stated that she was first allowed to use the restroom at the police station and then later again at the sheriff's station. Appellant explained that once at EPSO headquarters, she was "locked up." On her last trip back from the restroom she saw her son Ruben Acevedo but did not speak to him. Appellant stated that the detectives returned her to the interview room and informed her that Ruben was a suspect in Jose's murder and that if she did not confess, they would arrest both Appellant and Ruben.

Appellant also testified that at some point while at EPSO headquarters, she was escorted to the polygraph room with a detective and the two began discussing the polygraph machine.² The detective also told Appellant about himself, including that he had been a child in a dysfunctional family and that he understood family abuse. Appellant stated that this detective also told her to confess.

Detective Andrade

Detective Andrade testified that he arrived at the Acevedo residence at approximately 7:30 a.m. on September 25, 2014. Appellant informed Detective Andrade that she was the only person in the house with her husband that previous night. He then asked Appellant if she would accompany investigators to EPSO headquarters in order to aid the investigation into her husband's death. At this point, Detective Andrade explained, Appellant was neither under arrest or a suspect. Appellant complied and rode with another detective to EPSO headquarters in the front-seat passenger's seat. Once at EPSO headquarters, Detective Andrade advised Appellant of herMiranda³ rights verbally and through an English and Spanish form, which Appellant signed. Detective Andrade testified that he did not tell Appellant that Ruben was a suspect or that he would be arrested. Detective Andrade also testified that Appellant had a lower lip injury.

First Interview

This first video recorded interview was conducted in Spanish. Appellant spoke with detectives for approximately one hour and twenty minutes, agreed to provide a DNA sample, did not confess or otherwise make any incriminating statements. Appellant's first interview was in most respects similar to her later accounts except as it pertained to what happened to Jose. Appellant stated that she and Jose ate dinner at a taco restaurant and returned home the evening Jose died. She explained that once home, Jose had a beer and she went to bed. She denied knowing what happened to Jose. Detective Andrade asked Appellant if she would be willing to submit to a polygraph examination, to which she agreed.

Detective Chavarria

Detective Gonzalo Chavarria, the EPSO's polygraph examiner, testified that Appellant had been escorted by Detective Andrade and Detective Santibanez to the polygraph examination room. He described the layout of the office, stating that if "somebody was standing in the hallway when [Appellant and the detectives] passed by, they would have to see [whoever was standing in the hallway]." Once transferred to the polygraph examination room, Appellant met with Detective Chavarria. Appellant asked him if her son Ruben would also be subjected to a polygraph examination, to which Detective Chavarria responded that it was possible. Appellant began asking him more questions about the polygraph machine at which point Detective Chavarria advised herMiranda warnings verbally and again in a Spanish form, which Appellant signed. After signing the form, Detective Chavarria stated that he noticed Appellant became emotional and stated that she did not want her family to undergo a polygraph examination or through the investigation. Appellant subsequently confessed that she had killed her husband with an apron. Detective Chavarria informed Detectives Andrade and Santibanez that Appellant had confessed. After being informed that Appellant had confessed, Detective Andrade escorted Appellant back to the interview room for a second interview after administering another set of Miranda warnings verbally and through an English and Spanish form, which Appellant again signed.

Second Interview

In this second interview, also conducted in Spanish, Appellant confessed that she strangulated her husband using the top loop of a blue apron she made and had left hanging on the washer's door at her home. Appellant explained that she and Jose never went to a taco restaurant but instead went to buy alcohol that evening. Once home, she drank some of the vodka they had purchased. When she awoke later that evening, she noticed the vodka bottle was empty and that Jose was intoxicated. After attempting to talk to him, she retrieved the apron and proceeded to strangle him. She subsequently locked herself in her room and fell asleep.

Ruben Acevedo

Ruben testified that Appellant called to alert him about his father while he was working in Carlsbad, New Mexico. After arriving at the scene at the Acevedo residence, an officer informed him that he would need to provide a statement, to which Ruben agreed. After providing a statement at a substation, the detectives transported Ruben to EPSO headquarters. There, he saw Appellant walk past him as she walked from one room to another. Ruben explained that he had no doubt she had seen him as well. Ruben was not handcuffed and was not informed that he was a suspect orthat he was under arrest.

The State stipulated that detectives at EPSO headquarters walked Appellant past her son Ruben at the end of the suppression hearing. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress and entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The case proceeded to trial.

Trial

The trial began on October 26, 2015. Through a motion-in-limine, Appellant and the State agreed to limit any discussion concerning the attempted polygraph examination that occurred at EPSO headquarters. The parties agreed to "talk around" the circumstances. Appellant pled "not guilty" to the charged offenses of first and second degree murder.

Appellant, again testifying through an interpreter, began by describing her marriage to Jose. She testified that she and Jose married when she was fourteen years' of age. After their first child was born, Jose became verbally abusive and binge drink. Jose physically beat Appellant often, often in front of their children, up until the eldest was approximately fifteen. As newlyweds, Jose first began asking Appellant to view pornographic books with him. Later, Jose began taking Appellant to hotels where he would force her to watch pornographic films with him. Jose would subsequently get drunk and leave, leaving her to walk home. Appellant testified that she felt pressured to commit these acts since they were married. In 2009, Jose was arrested for a misdemeanor family violence assault after he beat Appellant. She later requested that prosecutors dismiss the case after Jose beseeched Appellant to do so.

In the early morning hours of September 24, 2014, Appellant arrived home from work and fell asleep. She was quickly awoken by Jose when he asked for the keys to the vehicle so that he could drive their grandson to school. After falling back to sleep, Appellant woke again to mow...