Geronimo Rene Gutierrez

Case record: Geronimo Rene Gutierrez (TDCJ Number 999416)

Background

Geronimo Rene Gutierrez was born on 06/12/1977. He was listed as Hispanic and male. He was 24 years old when received on 05/21/2002 and 21 years old at the time of the offense. His education level was listed as 10, and his height and weight were listed as 5 ft 8 in and 175, respectively. His hair color was listed as black and his eye color as brown. His prior occupation was listed as cook, welder, laborer in Bexar County, Texas. His native county and native state were both listed as Bexar.

The offence

Gutierrez was indicted for the May 29, 1999, murder of Rick Marin during the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery.

On 05/29/1999 in San Antonio, Texas, Gutierrez abducted and murdered an adult Hispanic male. The victim was abducted in a parking lot of a convenience store by Gutierrez at gunpoint with a piston grip 12-guage shotgun. The victim was taken to a secluded location, where Gutierrez shot him 5 times with the 12-guage shotgun.

After seeing media coverage of the incident on the news, Gutierrez went back on 05/31/1999 and set fire to the body.

Marin was reported missing on May 30, 1999. His charred Ford Mustang was found on May 31, 1999, with the engine, transmission, tail lights, and radio missing. Marin’s badly burned and decomposed body was found in another area of town on June 4, 1999. The cause of death was determined to be shotgun blasts.

Investigation

A voluntary statement was given by Ramon Martinez after police went to Martinez’s workplace in January of 2001, arrested him for receiving stolen property, and took him to the police station. During his questioning, Martinez told police where his guns were and gave consent for police to retrieve them. Tests on the weapons revealed that they had not been used in the murder in this case. The charges against Martinez for receiving stolen property were later dropped.

People involved

• Geronimo Rene Gutierrez — appellant; defendant
• Rick Marin — victim; adult Hispanic male
• Ramon Martinez — witness; friend/associate; testified at trial
• Manuel Torres — witness; life-long friend of Gutierrez; testified at trial
• Anthony Rodriguez — witness; testified at trial
• Steven — Marin’s brother; testified at punishment phase
• Michelle — Marin’s sister; testified at punishment phase
• Raul — Marin’s father; testified at punishment phase
• Vicci — Marin’s mother; testified at punishment phase
• Deputy Jimmy Pearson — testified regarding classification placement and gang affiliation meeting
• Detective Rocky Dyer — testified regarding gangs and gang investigator background

Trial

On April 12, 2002, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a).

Appellant raised nine points of error on direct appeal. The court overruled appellant’s eighth and ninth points of error regarding legal and factual sufficiency related to intent to commit robbery during the capital murder. The court also overruled appellant’s first point of error regarding the prosecutor’s comment on appellant’s failure to testify, appellant’s second and third points of error regarding accomplice-witness instructions for Ramon Martinez and Anthony Rodriguez, appellant’s fourth point of error regarding impeachment of Torres with his statement to police, appellant’s fifth point of error regarding admission of autopsy photographs, appellant’s sixth point of error regarding admission of evidence of gang affiliation, and appellant’s seventh point of error regarding admission of victim-impact evidence.

Evidence relating to intent to commit robbery

Appellant did not dispute that evidence showed he murdered Marin, but argued there was no evidence he did so with the intent to commit robbery.

Manuel Torres testified that his neighbor, Ramon Martinez, had a Mercury Cougar in his back yard that did not have an engine. In the late spring of 1999, Martinez told Torres he was interested in obtaining one. Torres told Martinez he knew someone who could help and contacted appellant. Appellant met with Torres and Martinez at Martinez’s house and told Martinez he could get an engine if Martinez was willing to pay for it.

Approximately two weeks later, Torres witnessed appellant arriving at Martinez’s house with a car engine and assorted car parts. Torres helped appellant unload the engine and parts. On direct examination, Torres stated that he asked where appellant got the engine and appellant replied that he had seen a Ford Mustang on the south side of the city, stolen it, stripped some of the parts, and removed the engine. He then abandoned the car and burned it. On cross-examination, Torres stated appellant had not admitted to stealing the car or burning it. On re-direct examination, after Torres was confronted with his statement to police and after the prosecutor warned that one could get into trouble for lying under oath, Torres reluctantly conceded that appellant had, in fact, told Torres that he had stolen the car and burned it.

Martinez testified that, at the suggestion of Torres, he met with appellant in April or May of 1999 to discuss the possibility of appellant obtaining an engine for his Mercury Cougar. Appellant told Martinez he could get a Ford Mustang 5.0-liter engine for $800, and Martinez agreed to the price. Martinez testified that a few days later appellant went to Martinez’s house after work, and the two discussed guns. Appellant learned Martinez owned a 12-gauge shotgun. Appellant mentioned an upcoming gun show, and the two made plans to attend. After attending the gun show, Martinez purchased a .22-caliber rifle and accompanied appellant to a ranch owned by appellant’s mother to shoot the gun.

Martinez testified that about a month later appellant approached him and asked to borrow the shotgun. When Martinez refused, appellant asked to borrow $100 so that he could retrieve the shotgun from a pawn shop. Martinez loaned appellant the money and maintained he did not know what appellant planned to do with the shotgun.

Martinez testified that about a month later appellant appeared at Martinez’s workplace driving a pick-up truck with a Ford Mustang 5.0-liter engine in the bed. Appellant delivered the engine to Martinez’s house, and Martinez paid appellant for it in cash.

Martinez testified that at a later date appellant came to Martinez’s home with a newspaper article reporting the discovery of Marin’s charred Ford Mustang and the search for Marin. Appellant showed Martinez the article and said: “That's the guy I shot for the car.” Appellant then told Martinez that he had taken the car to “his lot” (2) and had set it on fire.

Anthony Rodriguez testified that he met appellant in 1998 while incarcerated in the Bexar County Jail, and that they became friends. Rodriguez testified that in May of 1999 appellant went to Rodriguez’s apartment and asked whether Rodriguez wanted to earn some money. Rodriguez accompanied appellant to Martinez’s house. While there, Martinez asked whether he could obtain a Ford Mustang 5.0-liter engine. Appellant replied that he could and that the cost would be $1,000.

Rodriguez testified that a few weeks later appellant told him he had seen a Ford Mustang with a 5.0-liter engine in the parking lot of Rodriguez’s apartment complex and said that he wanted to steal it. Rodriguez testified that appellant’s plan was to pull the owner of the car into Rodriguez’s apartment, shoot her, and steal the car. Rodriguez testified that he was shocked by this idea and refused to go along with appellant’s plan.

Rodriguez testified that the next day he went with appellant to Martinez’s house, and appellant said he was going there to borrow money from Martinez to get his shotgun out of a pawn shop. Rodriguez testified that appellant and he went to the Westside Pawn Shop, where appellant paid what he owed to retrieve his shotgun and filled out some paperwork. Rodriguez testified that the clerk told appellant it would be three working days before he could pick up the shotgun because of federal regulations.

Rodriguez testified that the day before Marin’s murder appellant told him he had a new idea about how to steal a Ford Mustang. Rodriguez testified that appellant said he planned to flag down a Ford Mustang near Palo Alto College, shoot the driver, put the driver in the back seat, and drive away with the car. Rodriguez testified that appellant said: “I'm going to fucking shoot him, and I'm not giving the guy a chance.” Rodriguez testified that he wanted nothing to do with the plan and ignored appellant’s phone calls the following day.

Rodriguez testified that a few days later appellant went to Rodriguez’s apartment and asked if Rodriguez wanted to “hang out.” Rodriguez testified that he said yes, and the two went to Martinez’s house. While there, Rodriguez testified that appellant showed him the 5.0-liter engine and said: “Remember what we were supposed to do Saturday? I did it. I got the motor.”

Rodriguez testified that after leaving Martinez’s house appellant and Rodriguez went to the home of appellant’s girlfriend. Rodriguez testified that the two watched the ten-o'clock news with appellant’s girlfriend, and that one of the stories on the news was about Marin's disappearance. Rodriguez testified that after seeing the news story appellant became “shaky” and told Rodriguez: “That shit we were watching right now, I - I did it.”

The court held that the testimony of Torres, Martinez, and Rodriguez detailing appellant’s own statements regarding his intent to steal Marin’s car was sufficient evidence for a jury to find appellant intended to rob Marin of his vehicle.

Prosecutor’s comment on appellant’s failure to testify

In his first point of error, appellant claimed the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s comment on appellant’s failure to testify. The prosecutor made the following argument at the guilt or innocence phase of trial:

“You don't excuse somebody's behavior who's capable of doing this type of things [sic], just because we don't have an eyewitness at the moment the crime occurred. Criminals commit crimes in instances and circumstances where they think they're not going to get caught. But you know what? He messed up. He left too many trails. Too many pieces of evidence to link him to this crime, and he can't get out of it. And what he's trying to do today is what he tried to do for the seventeen months he escaped law enforcement. He's hiding from the truth. And you don't reward him for that.”

The court overruled appellant’s first point of error.

Accomplice-witness instructions

In his second and third points of error, appellant argued the trial court erred by failing to submit an instruction on whether Ramon Martinez and Anthony Rodriguez were accomplice witnesses. The court overruled appellant’s second and third points of error.

Impeachment with prior inconsistent statement

In his fourth point of error, appellant asserted the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach Torres with his statement to police as a prior inconsistent statement, in violation of Rule of Evidence 613. The court overruled appellant’s fourth point of error on the basis that Torres’s statement was never offered nor admitted into evidence at trial.

Autopsy photographs

In his fifth point of error, appellant asserted the trial court erred by overruling his objections to the admissibility of fourteen autopsy photographs. The state withdrew its proffer of Exhibit 101, and it was not admitted.

The record included the following descriptions of photographs:

• Exhibit 99 depicted Marin’s charred body as it was when it was brought into the medical examiner’s office from the crime scene.
• Exhibit 100 showed a closer view of Marin’s back, which showed maggot infestation.
• Exhibit 109 was a photograph of Marin’s upper back and the back of his skull.
• Exhibit 110 was a photograph of Marin’s body from his skull to his knees.
• Exhibit 114 depicted Marin’s thighs and showed the absence of his legs from the knees down.
• Exhibit 115 depicted Marin’s lower torso to his knees.
• Exhibit 116 was a photograph of the victim’s torso.
• Exhibit 117 was a photograph depicting Marin’s feet, which were detached from the rest of his body.
• Exhibits 120, 121, 122, and 123 and 124 were photographs of different bone fragments.
• Exhibit 149 depicted two x-rays showing the location of the shotgun pellets in Marin’s body. The court overruled appellant’s fifth point of error.

Evidence of gang affiliation at punishment phase

In his sixth point of error, appellant argued the trial court erred by admitting, at the punishment phase, evidence regarding appellant’s gang affiliation. Deputy Jimmy Pearson testified he was employed in the classification department of the Bexar County Jail and met with appellant at the jail in September of 1995 to determine the best placement for appellant in the jail. Pearson testified that appellant signed an “acknowledgment of gang affiliation” and admitted his membership in the “Big Time Kings,” and that appellant’s street name was “Redrum.” Pearson testified that appellant listed his gang enemies as “The Raiders, L.A. Boyz, Ambrose, Cribbs, Crips, 'Tepa,' and Bad Company.”

Detective Rocky Dyer testified that he had been a San Antonio police officer for fifteen years, assigned to gang units for most of that time, and completed over 300 hours of advanced gang-investigator study between 1989 and the trial. Dyer testified that he was President of the Texas Gang Investigators Association and taught courses in gang investigation to other officers. Dyer testified that the Big Time Kings were the largest street gang in San Antonio and were involved in “just about everything you could imagine. All the way from petty thefts, all the way up to capital murder, robberies, burglaries, drive-by shootings, aggravated assaults.” Dyer further testified that enemies of the Big Time Kings included LA Boys, Bad Company, and Ambrose, among others.

The court overruled appellant’s sixth point of error.

Victim-impact evidence

In his seventh point of error, appellant argued the trial court erred by admitting victim-impact evidence at the punishment phase in violation of Rule 403. The court stated victim-impact and character evidence was admissible to show uniqueness of the victim and harm caused by the defendant, and as rebuttal to mitigating evidence.

The state called members of Marin’s immediate family:

• Steven and Michelle testified without objection during their testimony, and the court stated the right to appeal as to these witnesses was forfeited.
• Raul testified regarding his background, including that he was a veteran of the Vietnam War. He testified that after his service he married Vicci and had three children. Raul testified that although Raul and Vicci divorced, Raul remained close to his children. Raul testified that when Marin turned sixteen years old, Raul bought him the 5.0-liter Mustang appellant stole, and that Marin spent time at Raul’s house and Raul helped Marin upgrade parts of the car including the stereo system and engine. Raul testified that on May 30, 1999, he was preparing to celebrate his birthday when Steven called and told him Marin was missing. Raul and Steven testified that they looked for Marin while Michelle contacted area hospitals. Raul testified that the next day a San Antonio police detective called Steven’s cell phone and told him Marin’s car had been found. Raul testified that the Heidi Search Center became involved and Raul and Steven joined efforts. Raul testified that five days later police notified him they had found Marin’s body, and Raul testified he was devastated. Raul testified that as a result of Marin’s death he had been unable to celebrate his birthday, his daughter’s birthday, or Christmas, and that there was a permanent void in his life. Raul testified he described Marin’s death as senseless.
• Vicci testified that her son was a gentle, kind, and giving son who lived with her at the time of his death. Vicci testified that she worked for the San Antonio Independent School District assisting in the special education department with physically disabled children, and that Marin donated time and money to help these children. Vicci testified that on the day of his death Marin dropped her off at her weekend job at a group home for mentally retarded adults. Vicci testified that the next day Michelle phoned Vicci at work to let her know Marin had not returned home after going out Saturday night, and that they began phoning Marin’s friends and then Michelle contacted the Heidi Search Center. Vicci testified that five days later she was notified that Marin’s body had been found. The trial court recessed for ten minutes during Vicci’s testimony when she became upset. Vicci testified that after her son’s death she quit both of her jobs because she was emotionally distraught and that she visited Marin’s grave every other day. Vicci testified that she was especially sad that she would never have grandchildren from her first-born son and that Marin would never know any grandchildren she might have from his siblings.

The court overruled appellant’s seventh point of error and found no comparison of the worth of appellant and Marin.

Sentencing

Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, §§ 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death under Art. 37.071 § 2(g). Direct appeal to the court was automatic under Art. 37.071 § 2(h).

Appeals

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, No. 74,341, the proceeding was listed as: Geronimo Gutierrez, Appellant v. The State of Texas

The opinion was delivered by Johnson, J., joined by Keller, P.J. and Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ. Meyers, J. concurred in point of error number 7 and otherwise joined the opinion.

The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The court stated: We affirm.

Johnson, J. En banc Delivered: April 21, 2004 Do Not Publish

Outcome

Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder on April 12, 2002 and was sentenced to death.

Other details

Appellant escaped law enforcement and remained free for seventeen months after the murder, as referenced in the prosecutor’s argument during the guilt or innocence phase and discussed by the appellate court.

The appellate court included explanatory notes:

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to articles refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Presumably, this referred to the vacant lot where Marin’s charred vehicle was found.
3. Raul’s daughter’s birthday is May 28, one day before Marin’s death occurred.
4. Marin’s sister, Michelle, was pregnant at the time of trial.