Bobby Lee Murphy v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 05-22-00950-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed February 20, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00950-CR

BOBBY LEE MURPHY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-25327

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith Opinion by Justice Reichek Bobby Lee Murphy appeals his conviction for the offense of murder. In his

first five issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting video recordings

from security cameras into evidence. In his final issue, appellant contends the

judgment must be modified to properly reflect his plea to the enhancement

allegations and the jury’s findings on the enhancements. We agree the judgment

should be modified and, as reformed, we affirm.

On September 6, 2021, Garland police officer Ryan Kelly performed a traffic

stop of appellant’s vehicle for having an expired registration sticker. As Kelly was verifying appellant’s information, appellant fled the scene. Kelly pursued appellant

in his patrol vehicle and, as the chase continued, other police officers joined in the

pursuit.

Appellant drove his car at an excessive rate of speed, ran stop lights, and drove

on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. At the intersection of West

Miller Road and South Garland Road, appellant ran a red light and crashed into a car

being driven by Karla Rico. Rico was killed instantly. Rico’s stepson, who was in

the passenger seat of Rico’s car, was seriously injured. A third vehicle, driven by

Marcia Barrett, was also involved in the crash. Barrett sustained cuts from her

shattered windshield.

Appellant was arrested and indicted for murder. At trial, the State offered

multiple video recordings of the car chase into evidence. Several of the recordings

were made by police body cameras and police vehicle dashboard cameras. Other

recordings were obtained from security cameras belonging to businesses in the area

where the chase occurred.

Appellant objected to the admission of five of the video recordings on the

basis that they had not been properly authenticated. Four of the challenged

recordings were from security cameras. The fifth was a compilation of the security

camera recordings. Appellant argued the State failed to properly authenticate the

security camera recordings because its witnesses did not have sufficient knowledge

of how the various surveillance systems worked or whether the videos accurately

–2– depicted what happened on the day of the offense. The trial court overruled

appellant’s objections and the video recordings were admitted.

On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his

authentication objections. We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude

evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15,

19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The erroneous admission of evidence is non-

constitutional error. Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

We may not reverse for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a

whole, we have fair assurance the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect

or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Id. Where the challenged evidence

is cumulative of other evidence that was properly admitted, any error in admission

is harmless. Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Infante

v. State, 404 S.W.3d 656, 663–64 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

The video recordings to which appellant objected purportedly showed

different points of the car chase from the point of view of security cameras along the

chase route. Even assuming it was error to admit these videos, we conclude any

error was harmless because the properly admitted video recordings from the police

officers’ body cameras and dashboard cameras depicted the same events in greater

detail. In particular, State’s exhibit 85, which was admitted without objection,

showed the combined body camera and dashboard camera recordings of Officer

Kelly. This video showed all of the events of the offense beginning with the traffic

–3– stop and ending with Kelly approaching appellant trapped in his car at the scene of

the crash. During the footage of the chase, Kelly can be heard informing other police

personnel that the speed of appellant’s car was exceeding ninety miles per hour, and

that appellant was running red lights and crossing over into opposing lanes of traffic.

Given the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt and the cumulative nature of

the recordings made the basis of appellant’s complaints, we conclude any error in

admitting the recordings was harmless. We overrule appellant’s first five issues.

In his sixth issue, appellant contends the judgment should be modified to

accurately reflect his pleas to the enhancement paragraphs and the jury’s findings on

the enhancements. The State agrees. We have the power to modify a judgment to

speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc).

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to show that appellant pleaded

“not true” to the enhancement paragraphs and the jury found all of the enhancements

to be true.

–4– As reformed, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

220950F.U05

–5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

BOBBY LEE MURPHY, Appellant On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00950-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F21-25327. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:

In the portions of the judgment concerning pleas to the enhancement paragraphs, the term "N/A" is DELETED and REPLACED with the words "NOT TRUE." In the portions of the judgment concerning findings on the enhancement paragraphs, the term "N/A" is DELETED and REPLACED with the word “TRUE.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered February 20, 2024

–6–