Bobby Lee Murphy v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

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–