Tony Salinas v. State
Tony Salinas v. State
Opinion
Appellant abducted his estranged wife, Maria Salinas, as she left work on the afternoon of April 9, 1996. Appellant, who was armed with a pistol, seized Maria, forced her into his car, and drove her to Austin. Maria testified that appellant showed her the gun but did not overtly threaten her with it. She said that she was in fear for her life and cooperated with appellant in an effort to avoid violence. During the drive to Austin, appellant told Maria "we were both as good as dead because he knew what trouble he had gotten into." After spending the night in an Austin motel, appellant drove Maria to Laredo, where he was arrested in a motel parking lot on the night of April 10.
Appellant's sister-in-law, Stephanie Leza, testified that appellant visited her on the day of the abduction. Appellant asked Leza several questions about Maria and told her that he was "really upset" and "couldn't take the pain of them not being together." Appellant showed Leza a photograph of himself, Maria, and their children from which he had cut out Maria. He told her, "[T]hat is how they are going to be--alone without their mother."
A search for appellant and Maria Salinas began soon after the abduction, which was witnessed and reported to the police. One of the investigating officers, Temple police officer William Dorsey, went to the home of appellant's parents, where he spoke to appellant's mother and sister. They gave Dorsey a Bible in which appellant had written, "Please forgive me Lord God. 4-9-96. [Signed] Tony Salinas, Jr. I love y'all boys!" The Bible was introduced in evidence as State's exhibit three. In his first point of error, appellant contends the Bible with its note was not relevant evidence because there was no showing that the act for which appellant sought forgiveness was the kidnapping of his wife. (1)
Appellant's trial objection was, "I don't see any relevance of this document. It has not been identified as property belonging to the defendant; therefore, I don't think it is relevant." Although this objection did challenge the relevance of the exhibit, the theory on which the contention was based does not comport with the argument appellant now makes on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A).
If preserved for review, appellant's contention is without merit. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of a consequential fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 401. The question whether proffered evidence is relevant is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 390-91 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (opinion on rehearing). The district court could reasonably conclude that the note was evidence of appellant's culpable mental state at the time he abducted his wife. Finding no abuse of discretion in the introduction of the exhibit, we overrule point of error one.
Appellant's second point of error also concerns exhibit three. Dorsey was questioned as follows regarding his receipt of the Bible:
Q Detective Dorsey, did Tony Salinas's mother initiate some contact with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in connection with that contact, did she give you something that belonged to the Salinas family that she thought was pertinent to what you were doing?
A Yes, sir. She did.
Q Had you informed her that the reason you were there was that you were trying to find Maria Salinas and Tony and the car?
A That is what we told; yes, sir.
Q And was it at that point that she delivered something to you spontaneously without you requesting or even knowing that it existed?
A That is correct.
. . .
Q All right. In the first two pages of that book was there something that they pointed out to you which they thought was pertinent to this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, sir. And is that a page that appears to have blue handwriting and printing on it?
A Yes, sir. It is.
Appellant had objected that any statements made by his mother and sister to Dorsey were hearsay. This objection was overruled. In point of error two, appellant contends the district court erred by admitting the hearsay statements by his mother and sister to the effect that the note in the Bible was pertinent to the investigation.
The prosecutor's questions indirectly conveyed statements made to Dorsey by appellant's mother and sister. See Schaffer v. State, 777 S.W.2d 111, 113-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (indirect hearsay). These statements were not, however, hearsay. Hearsay is an extrajudicial statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 801(d). An extrajudicial statement is not hearsay if it is offered to show what was said rather than for the truth of the matter stated. Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The questions at issue showed how the officer came to discover the note appellant wrote in the Bible. Because the testimony was offered merely to show what was said, it did not constitute hearsay. Point of error two is overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: October 23, 1997
Do Not Publish
1. It was undisputed that appellant wrote this note.
ence. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 401. The question whether prof
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.