Matthews v. State

The trial court properly refused to allow the defendant to present evidence implicating another person in the crimes, since the testimony at issue was not based on personal knowledge and did not raise a reasonable inference of the defendant's innocence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Jarvis Matthews was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Juan Manuel Ramirez. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by: 1 admitting his sentencing order from a prior conviction; 2 admitting similar transaction evidence, allowing the State to urge the jury to use the evidence to prove Appellant’s character, and improperly instructing the jury regarding its use; and 3 preventing Appellant from presenting evidence implicating another person in the crimes. We affirm.1

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. On August 30, 2002, Ramirez, Francisco Zoniga-Rivera, and Markeisha Scruggs arranged to buy about six pounds of marijuana from Appellant for about $3,000. They met him in the parking lot of an apartment complex where he claimed his mother lived. Appellant asked to see the money before producing the drugs, and after the cash was counted, Ramirez asked to see the marijuana. Appellant said it was in his mother’s apartment and that only Ramirez should go with him to get it, but Zoniga-Rivera and Scruggs insisted on going as well. The three buyers followed Appellant into the breezeway of one of the apartment buildings, where he pulled out a gun and told Ramirez to give him the money. When Ramirez refused, Appellant shot him. As Zoniga-Rivera and Scruggs ran out of the breezeway in opposite directions, Appellant shot Ramirez again. As Ramirez lay on the ground, Appellant went through his pockets and took the money before running away. Ramirez died of a gunshot wound to the torso.

Matthews v. State

The trial court properly refused to allow the defendant to present evidence implicating another person in the crimes, since the testimony at issue was not based on personal knowledge and did not raise a reasonable inference of the defendant's innocence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report