The ongoing legal saga involving former Bexar County Constable Michelle Jeanette Barrientes has reached a critical juncture as the State of Texas formally petitions for discretionary review following the reversal of her tampering conviction by the Eighth Court of Appeals. This high-profile case, which has unfolded over several years, delves into alleged misconduct by Barrientes during her tenure as an elected official and the intricacies of evidence handling within the framework of public corruption investigations.
Background of the Case and Initial Investigation
Michelle Barrientes assumed the role of Constable for Precinct 2 in Bexar County in January 2017. As part of her duties, she oversaw security operations at Rodriguez Park, a public recreational site in her jurisdiction. The park, known for its rentable pavilions and kitchens, requires patrons to secure security services if their gatherings exceed 50 guests or include alcohol.
The allegations against Barrientes stem from an incident on Easter Sunday, April 21, 2019, involving long-time park patron Jesus Reyes. Reyes had reserved a pavilion for his family’s annual celebration, but confusion arose when a park employee mistakenly informed Barrientes that Reyes had canceled the reservation. Barrientes then rebooked the pavilion for her own family event. Upon discovering the mistake, Barrientes relocated her gathering, but during Reyes’ event, she observed alcohol being consumed without the required security presence.
Reyes reported that Barrientes, dressed in uniform and accompanied by other officers, approached him and demanded $300 for security services if the event were to continue. Feeling intimidated, Reyes complied, retrieving cash from a nearby ATM. The incident, which Reyes described as a “shake down,” soon attracted media attention, casting a spotlight on Barrientes’ practices regarding security assignments and financial transactions.
The Investigation and Subpoenas
The controversy spurred investigations by both the Texas Rangers and the FBI into Barrientes’ office. On June 11, 2019, Texas Ranger Bradley Freeman served Barrientes with a grand jury subpoena requesting comprehensive records related to security agreements, deputy work assignments, and schedules for Rodriguez Park from January 1, 2017, to June 11, 2019. The purpose was to uncover potential irregularities and determine whether any misconduct had occurred in the administration of security duties.
The day after receiving the subpoena, Barrientes called Ranger Freeman seeking clarification on what specific documents were required. Freeman reiterated his request for security agreements and any related scheduling information. In response, Barrientes instructed her clerk, Susan Tristan, to make copies of all documents related to Rodriguez Park. Tristan, who had been the primary point of contact for park security arrangements, created seven copies of the records and retained the originals in her purple folder on her desk.
Emergence of Concealment Allegations
As the investigation deepened, it became evident that not all relevant documents had been submitted to authorities. Notably, the “cash logs”—detailed records that tracked the money received for park security, including receipt numbers and the deputies involved—were conspicuously absent from the materials provided. According to Tristan’s testimony, Barrientes instructed her to compile new cash logs after the subpoena was served. These new logs, which included dates, amounts paid, and the names of assigned deputies, were predominantly handwritten by Barrientes herself, relying on Tristan’s data.
Despite being aware of the importance of the documents, Barrientes withheld these cash logs when submitting records to her attorney for delivery to the District Attorney’s Office. Ranger Freeman testified that upon reviewing the submission, it became apparent that the critical cash logs were missing. This omission led to further subpoenas and, eventually, a search warrant.
Key Testimonies and Trial Proceedings
Susan Tristan, who feared repercussions and possible job loss, reached out to Ranger Freeman two days after the initial subpoena was served and provided additional information, including copies of the original cash logs. She continued to cooperate with authorities and even wore a hidden recording device during certain interactions at work. Her cooperation was pivotal to the prosecution’s case.
During the trial, which began in 2023, the State focused on proving that Barrientes’ actions met the legal threshold for tampering with evidence under Texas Penal Code § 37.09(a). The prosecution argued that Barrientes’ removal and withholding of the cash logs demonstrated both the intent and act of concealment. Ranger Freeman highlighted that despite repeated attempts to secure these documents through official channels, the logs were never voluntarily provided by Barrientes.
Barrientes’ defense countered that the documents had not been concealed as Tristan, a third party, always knew their location. Her legal team argued that failing to include documents in a subpoena response did not meet the statutory definition of concealment, which requires that evidence be hidden or kept from discovery.
Conviction and Sentencing
A jury ultimately convicted Barrientes on two counts: (1) tampering with evidence by concealing records, and (2) fabricating evidence by creating false cash logs. She was sentenced to six years in prison, with the sentence suspended in favor of five years of community supervision and a 90-day jail term.
Appeal and Acquittal
Barrientes appealed the conviction, and on October 3, 2024, the Eighth Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. The court’s opinion emphasized that under the precedent set by Stahmann v. State, actual concealment must involve hiding or removing evidence from sight. The court noted that Tristan’s consistent awareness of the cash logs’ location undermined the State’s argument of concealment. Additionally, the court found no sufficient evidence that the cash logs created after the subpoena were intended to affect the investigation, as they were never presented to law enforcement.
The appellate court’s decision hinged on the distinction between intent and action. While it was clear that Barrientes had not included the logs in her response, this did not equate to actual concealment under the law. The ruling also highlighted discrepancies in the State’s argument regarding the fabrication count, noting that even if there were inconsistencies in the logs, the State did not prove falsity or intent beyond reasonable doubt.
State’s Petition for Discretionary Review
The State, represented by Assistant District Attorney Scott Roberts, has now petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a discretionary review. The petition challenges the appellate court’s narrow interpretation of “concealment” and argues that the ruling sets a troubling precedent. If an actor must succeed in hiding material evidence from every potential witness, convictions under this statute would become rare, Roberts contended.
Roberts’ petition also calls for the court to consider reformation to a lesser-included offense of attempted tampering. Citing Thornton v. State, Roberts argued that when evidence supports a lesser charge, appellate courts must reform the judgment rather than acquit.
Request for Comment
The Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office states it does not comment on pending appeals.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on a Northside ISD K9 officer being disciplined.
Or you may find our publishing on a recent lawsuit filed on the VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News