The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
Texas Court of Appeals Upholds Admission of Photos Taken From Defendant’s Cell Phone
June 17, 2019
Last week, the Texas Court of Appeals issued a decision, Rodriguez v. State, No. 14-17-00613-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 4734 (Tex. App. June 11, 2019) in a capital murder case, which upheld a lower court’s admission of photos taken from the defendant’s cell phone. The photos showed the defendant with items found at the crime scene, including firearms and a bandana the defendant wore as a mask in one photo.
The photos were not held to be cumulative evidence since the defense cast doubt on witness identifications of Rodriguez as the shooter. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that the photos would tempt the jury to find him guilty on grounds other than evidence that offense occurred.
“While the photographs including guns may have been inflammatory, the prejudice resulting from the admission of those photographs did not substantially outweigh their probative value.”. Id. at *17.