This is a non-issue.
Originally Posted by Meoauniaea
ya, think?
Looks like a "non-issue" to me:
I already posted this last month, in case it was not read:
No. 13-10-00216-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi - Edinburg
February 17, 2011
“A Nueces County jury convicted appellant, Heriberto Saenz, of one count of murder, a first-degree felony, and three counts of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 19.02 (Vernon 2003); id. 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2010). Saenz was sentenced to seventy years’ imprisonment for the murder count and twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the aggravated assault counts, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. By a single issue on appeal, Saenz argues that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting certain expert testimony and that the error affected Saenz’s substantial rights. We affirm.
The State also presented evidence regarding calls made by Saenz on his cell phone that evening. Raymond McDonald, a legal compliance officer employed by T-Mobile, Saenz’s cell phone service provider, testified that he is a “custodian of records for cell phone records dealing with [Saenz’s] cell phone number.” McDonald authenticated, and the trial court admitted into evidence without objection, records for Saenz’s cell phone account on the date of the shooting, as well as records for certain cell towers and call detail information for those towers.
The State then called Detective Ben Tead of the Corpus Christi Police Department. Outside the presence of the jury, Detective Tead testified that he has an associate’s degree in criminal justice and “ha[s] attended several schools in investigative techniques put on by the [Public Agency Training Council] and also by Texas [Department of Public Safety] and also considerable on-the-job training.” He stated that he is certified by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education and that he has received specialized training in “cell phones and their usage.” Specifically, Detective Tead testified that he attended a three-day course in March of 2009 focusing on “isolating and identifying cellular towers to be used to track individuals, actually track cell phones and the location, physical location, from which they were used.” Detective Tead explained that cell phone companies systematically keep records of (1) the locations of the various towers that transmit and receive their signals, and (2) “what cellular tower and what sector on that cellular tower a call was first placed to and what cellular tower and sector on that cellular tower was last communicated with by that cellular device.” [2] Detective Tead acknowledged that he had never before given an opinion in court “regarding information obtained from cell phones or cell phone towers” but that he has performed analyses on such records some twelve times previously.
Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court qualified Detective Tead as an expert to testify as to the location of Saenz’s cell phone at the time of the shooting “based on the calls and the data that w[ere] provided by T-Mobile.” See Tex. R. Evid. 702. Detective Tead then testified before the jury that, at Detective Rodriguez’s request, he reviewed the T-Mobile records that were previously authenticated by McDonald and admitted into evidence. He also obtained records from T-Mobile listing the global positioning system (“GPS”) coordinates for all towers located in Texas. The records showed that a thirty-second call was placed at 10:32 on the evening in question from Saenz’s cell phone to a cell phone registered in the name of Anthony Curiel. Detective Tead stated that Curiel “is a known member of the Suicidal Barrio gang.” The prosecutor then asked:
Q. [Prosecutor] Now were you able to determine the tower usage that we can associate with the phone [call]?
A. [Detective Tead] Yes. This tower is located-the GPS coordinates place it on Leopard, near Airport Road or-yes, Airport Road.
Q. Were you able to determine which particular part of the tower was used to complete that call?
A. Yes. It was sector two. The call started and ended in sector two of cellular tower with a [location area code] of 9905 and a cellular tower I.D. of 40702 which was the cellular tower off of Leopard [S]treet. Sector two covers a serviceable area which includes the location of the murder.
Detective Tead further testified that some ten other calls were made or received by Saenz’s cell phone that evening, including four calls to and from Rebecca Mills, who was identified as Saenz’s girlfriend, and two calls placed to other Suicidal Barrios gang members. The calls which were made at or around the approximate time of the shooting were associated with towers located near 1112 Sabinas Street. According to Saenz, “[i]n essence, [Detective] Tead testified that [Saenz]’s cell phone was at or near the crime scene at the time of the shooting.”
Joshua Deon Lamb, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
No. 14-09-01007-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District
February 15, 2011
“A jury found appellant Joshua Deon Lamb guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Lamb appeals his conviction contending that: (1) the evidence at trial is legally and factually insufficient to support a guilty verdict; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial court erred in charging the jury on the law of parties, and (4) the State argued outside the record during closing argument. We affirm.”
“Investigators also recovered Carter’s cell phone from his pocket and enlisted Steve Lowenstein, an inspector with the United States Marshals Service, to analyze the call records. It was determined that Lamb and Carter exchanged several brief phone calls shortly before the shooting. Lamb first called Carter at 2:51 a.m., with additional calls following at 2:58, 3:00, 3:06, 3:36, and 3:39. Espree called 911 at 3:43 a.m., and no additional calls between Lamb and Carter followed. Inspector Lowenstein was able to track the movements of Lamb’s cell phone during these calls by examining the cell towers used by the phone. He determined that up until 3:20 a.m., Lamb’s phone was in the area of his apartment but moved from his apartment to the area of Carter’s home in the 15 minutes immediately before the shooting. By 3:50 a.m., roughly seven minutes after the shooting, Lamb’s phone had returned to the area of his apartment. The phone was never used again after that morning.”
______________ End of Quoted Material_______________