The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News | A Texas News Source

Texas Court Overturns Constable’s Tampering Conviction

Texas Court Overturns Constable’s Tampering Conviction

By

In a significant legal ruling, the Texas Eighth District Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of former Bexar County Constable Michelle Jeanette Barrientes on charges of tampering with and fabricating evidence. The court, on October 3, 2024, found that the evidence presented during the trial was insufficient to support the charges, leading to Barrientes’ full acquittal. The decision highlights the rigorous legal standards required for such convictions under Texas law and brings a conclusion to a case that has garnered widespread attention since 2019.

Background: Barrientes’ Role and Allegations

Michelle Barrientes served as the Constable for Bexar County’s Precinct Two, a position that involved managing security arrangements for private events at Rodriguez Park. Under county policy, events that had more than 50 attendees or involved alcohol were required to hire security officers, typically off-duty deputies. Barrientes implemented a system where payments for security services were made directly to her office instead of to the deputies at the event.

The case against Barrientes began in 2019 when a park patron, Jesus Reyes, filed a complaint alleging that Barrientes demanded a $300 cash payment for security services during an Easter Sunday event. This complaint sparked a broader investigation into her management of security arrangements at the park. Subsequently, Texas Ranger Bradley Freeman served Barrientes with a grand jury subpoena requesting records related to security assignments and payments at Rodriguez Park between 2017 and 2019.

The State accused Barrientes of failing to fully comply with the subpoena, arguing that she concealed documents and later fabricated new handwritten cash logs to mislead investigators. Based on these accusations, Barrientes was charged with tampering with and fabricating evidence under Texas Penal Code § 37.09(a).

Charges and the State’s Case

The charges against Barrientes stemmed from two provisions of Texas Penal Code § 37.09(a):

• Tampering with Evidence: This charge applies when a person “alters, destroys, or conceals” a document with the intent to impair its availability as evidence.
• Fabricating Evidence: This charge applies when a person “makes, presents, or uses” a document they know to be false with the intent to affect the outcome of an investigation.

The State’s case was based on two main arguments. First, they claimed that Barrientes had concealed records by not turning over all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Second, they argued that Barrientes had fabricated new cash logs to hide the illegal use of reserve deputies, particularly Deputy O’Neil, who was not authorized to work paid security jobs under Texas law.

Insufficient Evidence of Concealment

In its decision, the court ruled that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that Barrientes had concealed documents in response to the grand jury subpoena. The key testimony came from Susan Tristan, an office clerk who handled the security records for Rodriguez Park. Tristan testified that the records were kept in a folder on her desk and were always accessible to anyone in the office.

Crucially, two days after the subpoena was served, Tristan voluntarily provided copies of the records, including the cash logs, to Ranger Freeman. Given that the records were in law enforcement’s possession before Barrientes’ official response to the subpoena was due, the court found that there was no evidence of concealment.

The court’s ruling relied heavily on the precedent set by Stahmann v. State (2020). In that case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned a tampering conviction, ruling that merely discarding a pill bottle during a car accident—when the bottle was in plain sight—did not constitute concealment. The court in Barrientes’ case found a similar scenario: since the records were never hidden or destroyed and were accessible to law enforcement, there was no actual concealment. Additionally, the court referenced Rotenberry v. State, which clarified that simply failing to fully comply with a subpoena does not meet the legal definition of tampering unless the defendant actively attempts to hide or destroy evidence.

Fabrication Charge Fails to Hold Up

The court also found insufficient evidence to support the second charge of fabricating evidence. The State had argued that Barrientes created new handwritten cash logs after the subpoena was issued in order to obscure the fact that reserve Deputy O’Neil had worked security at an event, despite not being legally permitted to do so. The prosecution focused on a discrepancy between the original security agreement for a May 25, 2019 event, which listed O’Neil as the assigned deputy, and the new cash logs that listed Deputy Pena as having worked the event.

However, the court found that the State failed to prove that Barrientes intentionally falsified the cash logs. Both Deputies O’Neil and Pena testified during the trial, but the prosecution did not establish who actually worked the event. Without clear proof that the logs were falsified, the court ruled that the discrepancy was insufficient to support a fabrication charge.

The court also questioned the logic of the State’s case, noting that for Barrientes to have fabricated the logs with the intent to deceive investigators, she would have needed to submit those logs in response to the subpoena. However, the prosecution argued that Barrientes did not turn over these very documents. This contradiction undermined the State’s case, as the court found no evidence that Barrientes had both created and attempted to use false records.

In reaching its decision, the appeals court cited several important legal precedents that influenced its analysis of the case. One of the most significant was Williams v. State, which reaffirmed that for a conviction of fabricating evidence, the State must prove both the falsity of the document and the intent to affect the outcome of an investigation. The court found that the State had failed to meet this burden in Barrientes’ case.

The court also cited Stahmann v. State to emphasize that concealment requires an actual act of hiding or destroying evidence. In Barrientes’ case, the records were never hidden, and Ranger Freeman had access to them early in the investigation. The court ruled that there was no intent to conceal or destroy evidence, meaning that the tampering charge could not stand.

Conclusion: A Significant Acquittal

The Texas Eighth District Court of Appeals’ decision to overturn Barrientes’ conviction marks a major legal victory for the former constable, who had faced a six-year prison sentence, though the sentence had been suspended in favor of community supervision. The ruling underscores the importance of clear and direct evidence in tampering and fabrication cases and sets a high bar for future prosecutions under Texas Penal Code § 37.09(a).

As Barrientes continues to face other legal challenges, including charges of official oppression and aggravated perjury, the outcome of this appeal may shape the defense strategies in those cases. The ruling serves as a reminder of the strict legal standards that must be met in criminal cases involving allegations of tampering or fabricating evidence.


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 Comal County Sheriff‘ Office supervisor enticing a subordinate during a golf tournament.

Or you may find our publishing on a Comal County Sheriff’s Office employment background investigation 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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *