Romero v. State
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
173 S.W.3d 502 (2005)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Israel Romero (defendant) was indicted for aggravated assault after firing several shots in the direction of a Houston nightclub. The state (plaintiff) subpoenaed Cesar Vasquez, a cab driver who witnessed the incident, to make an in-court identification of Romero. Vasquez initially refused to testify, stating that he feared retaliation from Romero. The trial court fined Vasquez $500, but Vasquez still refused. Vasquez finally agreed to testify if his face was fully obscured. Vasquez took the stand wearing a baseball cap, large sunglasses, and a long-sleeved jacket with the collar flipped and zipped to conceal the lower half of his face. The trial court overruled Romero’s objection to Vasquez’s disguise. Romero then moved to suppress Vasquez’s in-court identification. The trial court held a suppression hearing outside the jury’s presence. Speaking through an interpreter, Vasquez testified that he feared Romero because Romero was dangerous, having fired a gun at the nightclub and a security guard, and was glaring at Vasquez while Vasquez testified. At the time of trial, Romero knew Vasquez’s name and home address. A jury convicted Romero. Romero appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keller, J.)
Dissent (Holcomb, J.)
Dissent (Meyers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.