Mercedes Antonio Menjivar v. State ( 2011 )

Opinion issued June 2, 2011.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00132-CR

———————————

Mercedes Antonio Menjivar, Appellant

V.

State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1206158

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Mercedes Antonio Menjivar, guilty of murder and assessed his punishment at thirty-seven and one-half years in prison and a ten-thousand dollar fine.  Menjivar’s sole point of appeal contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense when it refused to permit him to develop his theory that the complainant was a drug user and his death was the result of a dispute over a drug transaction.  We affirm.

Background

The complainant, Noe Fuenes, was dining with his uncle, Freddy Aguilar, at a local Houston restaurant one evening when Fuenes began conversing with a man later identified as appellant’s brother and co-defendant, Pedro “Huevo” Ronaldo Menjivar-Orellana.  At the end of their meal, Fuenes gave his uncle his car keys and money to pay for dinner, and then left with Huevo.  Fuenes accompanied Huevo to Jose Martinez’s mother’s apartment where they met up with Martinez, appellant, Luis “Espiri” Abraham Requeno-Portillo, and several other individuals.

 Although the testimony conflicts as to what happened thereafter, it is undisputed that Fuenes’s corpse, with multiple cuts and stab wounds, was discovered the next morning in a field, as was a knife stained with what was later determined to be Fuenes’s and appellant’s blood.  After interviewing several witnesses, including Martinez, Rodil Alejandro Cruz-Valdez, and Jose Antonio Miguel Orellana, the police identified appellant, Huevo, and Espiri as suspects in Fuenes’s murder.  Appellant’s DNA was found under Fuenes’s finger nails.

Discussion

In one issue on appeal, Menjivar complains that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense when it refused to permit him to develop his alternative perpetrator theory or cross-examine three witnesses regarding possible bias or motive to falsely accuse him.  In support, Menjivar identifies several instances where the trial court either prohibited him from eliciting testimony regarding Fuenes’s drug use, drug-related debts, and/or violent history, or prevented him from questioning several of the State’s witnesses regarding outstanding debts that two of those witnesses allegedly owed to appellant’s brother.

Defense counsel argued that the evidence of Fuenes’s drug use was relevant to Menjivar’s theory that one or more of several others could have killed Fuenes and evidence of the witnesses’ debts established their bias or motive to lie.  The State’s relevancy objections to such testimony were countered by the defense with arguments based upon the Rules of Evidence, not per a violation of Menjivar’s constitutional right to present a defense.  See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (stating that erroneous evidentiary rulings rarely rise to the level of denying a defendant his constitutional right to present a meaningful defense).  As a result of Menjivar’s failure to timely object on constitutional grounds, Menjivar has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review.  See Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding defendant failed to preserve complaint that he was denied constitutional rights to present a defense and to due process and due course of law where trial objection was based on rules of evidence); Hayes v. State, 124 S.W.3d 781, 786-87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff’d, 161 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding appellant failed to preserve complaint that trial court’s exclusion of evidence denied his constitutional right to due process by preventing him from presenting a defense because he argued at trial only that evidence was admissible based on various rules concerning relevancy); see also Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (recognizing that deprivation of meaningful opportunity to present complete defense is right subject to forfeiture).

We overrule appellant’s first issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                   Jim Sharp

                                                                   Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Brown.

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).