Rico v. State Opinion Filed April 16, 2024: Appeals Court Examines
In a notable opinion released April 16, 2024, the Texas First Court of Appeals in Houston reviewed the conviction of Elliot A. Rico for burglary of a habitation in Rico v. State. Charged with entering a home without consent to commit theft, Rico faced significant legal and evidentiary challenges during his trial, leading to a 20-year sentence imposed by the McLennan County court.
We’re not just Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers.
We are warriors fighting unjust and corrupt government prosecutions with a history of success and a reputation for tenacity, courage and legal ingenuity.
Background and Charges Explained
Rico was indicted for Burglary of a Habitation after allegedly entering Lindsay Daugherty’s home to steal clothing. Complicating factors included his previous relationship with Daugherty and allegations of harassment prior to the burglary. Despite his not guilty plea, the jury convicted Rico, influenced by evidence and testimonies presented during the trial.
Legal Controversies During the Trial
The trial sparked disputes over evidence relevancy, particularly the prosecution’s mention of “family violence” and Rico’s “messy relationship” with Daugherty. These comments led to objections from Rico’s defense, which were sustained, though his motion for a mistrial was denied, setting the stage for an appeal. The appellate court summarized the incident as follows:
During its opening statement, the prosecution informed the jurors that they would hear evidence that Rico had been harassing Lindsay Daugherty, the person whose home he burglarized, before the burglary took place. As a result of the harassment, the prosecution said, Daugherty was too scared to be home alone.
The defense objected on the grounds that the alleged harassment was irrelevant to the charged offense and the prosecution’s reference to it was inappropriate. In front of the jury, the prosecutor responded that this evidence “goes to the family violence” existing in the relationship between Rico and Daugherty. The prosecution’s explanation then provoked another objection from the defense, which also asked that the jury be instructed to disregard and moved for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the defense’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the comment about family violence. But the trial court denied the motion for mistrial.
In addition, the prosecution sought to introduce a series of text messages Daugherty allegedly received from Rico. These messages referred to Daugherty as “a hard headed bitch” and “never happy hoe.” They also accused her of being with other men. One message wrote that she was not “here” and he was “burning all [of her] shit.” One message was a photo of some article of clothing or clothes being set on fire. Daugherty said she knew these messages were from Rico because they came from his Facebook profile and were written in the way that he spoke to her.
The defense objected to the admission of these text messages, stating that the prosecution had not laid a proper foundation for their admissibility, the text messages did not show when or on what date they had been sent or received, and the messages consisted of hearsay. The trial court overruled these objections.
Evidentiary, Legal Sufficiency, and Mistrial Rulings
Holdings Related to Legal Sufficiency
The appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and questioned the handling of alleged harassment evidence relating to the charged offenses.
In holding that the evidence was sufficient for a burglary conviction, the court highlighted the following evidence:
Daugherty testified that Rico did not have permission to be in her home, he messaged her telling her that he was going to burn her clothes while she was away from home overnight, her clothes were located inside her home, she discovered items of her clothing were missing from the home when she returned the following day, and she additionally found remnants of burned clothing in a fire pit outside of her home. The prosecution introduced the threatening message and many others into evidence, and Daugherty identified them on the stand. Simons, the responding officer, and Richardson, the crime scene technician, both provided testimony that corroborated Daugherty’s testimony about the burning of her clothes. Photographs of the scene taken by Richardson, some of which show the remnants of burnt clothing in and around the fire pit, were introduced into evidence as well.
Holdings Related to the Evidentiary Foundation for the Facebook Messages
In denying the argument that the court erred in admitting into evidence the Facebook messages he allegedly authored the night of the burglary due to lack of authentication because the messages lack a date or time-stamp as to when they were sent, the appellate court cited case law that the authentication requirement is not a demanding one. “Ultimately, it is for the jury to decide whether an item of evidence is what its proponent claims. … The trial court must merely ensure the proponent has supplied enough facts to support a reasonable jury determination that the item of evidence is authentic.” The court concluded:
Daugherty testified that the messages originated from Rico’s Facebook profile, and she supplied various details in support—including their use of Rico’s name and his nickname, “Monster”; inclusion of a photograph of Rico; and reference to tattooing, which is Rico’s profession. Daugherty also testified that the messages were written in the way Rico typically speaks and writes and that she recognized his voice in the video message he sent. Taken together, this testimony suffices to support the trial court’s implicit finding that a jury could reasonably find the messages to be authentic.
Holdings Related to the Mistrial Request related to the Family Violence References
Rico also contended that the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, which were premised on repeated references during the guilt—innocence phase of trial to domestic violence against Daugherty committed by Rico. Rico maintained that these incurable references were so inflammatory that they deprived him of a fair trial.
The appellate court did not agree that the these references were irrelevant or improper. The court said that the comments went toward “motive” and that “Evidence of motive is highly relevant, so much so that the prosecution may virtually always introduce evidence explaining a defendant’s motive.”
