Joseph Pena v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this CaseJoseph PENA,
Appellant
v.
STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 96-CR-2781
Honorable Terry McDonald, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Tom Rickhoff, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 12, 1998
AFFIRMED
Joseph Pena appeals his murder conviction. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
After Pena and Joe Bernal initiated a confrontation in a convenience store parking lot, Pena stabbed Louis Gonzalez in the heart and then fled to a nearby apartment complex. Then, another of Pena's friends, Albert Ramirez, drove his blazer over Gonzalez and rammed the rear of the car in which Gonzalez and two friends had arrived. Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez died of the stab wound inflicted by Pena.
At trial, the court admitted a surveillance camera videotape showing Ramirez ramming his Blazer into Gonzalez' friend's car.
Discussion
Pena contends the trial court erred in admitting the surveillance videotape because it constitutes evidence of an extraneous offense committed after Pena left the scene. We disagree.
The admissibility of evidence is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. Gordon v. State, 784 S.W.2d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the surveillance videotape because (1) it does not show an extraneous offense committed by Pena, see Brown v. State, 505 S.W.2d 850, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); and (2) Pena failed to object when two witnesses testified to the same events depicted in the videotape. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 100 (1997). We therefore overrule Pena's point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
Return to4th Court of Appeals Opinions
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.