A jury was sworn in March 7 in the case State of Texas v. Carlos Perez (2025CR005408) in Bexar County. Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court presided. Prosecutors Lauren Espinosa and Megan Galloway told the court the State would call one witness; the defense indicated it would present opening remarks and cross‑examine. The trial was recessed for the day and set to resume the following afternoon at 1:30 p.m.

The state called Clinton Butler, who identified himself as the account holder whose routing and account numbers appeared on the contested check. Butler testified that he reviewed his bank statements online, saw check images out of sequence and that the signature on one image was not his. "I contacted Wells Fargo, told them that that was not my signature," Butler testified. He said Wells Fargo conducted a fraud review and that he received reimbursement on his account for at least some disputed items.

Defense attorney Roberto Ambrosino gave opening remarks describing Perez as a 53‑year‑old San Antonio resident who had worked 29 years at H‑E‑B and later ran a landscaping business. Ambrosino said the defense will show Perez was given a fraudulent check to cash and that officers detained and cuffed his client before obtaining his account of events. "The evidence will show that my client, Carlos Perez, is a victim in this situation as well," Ambrosino told the jury.

After the witness testimony the court held a hearing outside the jury on a defense motion to suppress statements and related body‑worn camera footage. The state presented three video exhibits from officers’ body and vehicle cameras (admitted for purposes of the hearing as M‑1, M‑2 and M‑3). Officer Alex Chawe testified that he and other officers responded to a Wells Fargo branch after a fraud alert; he said he Mirandized Perez and that Perez acknowledged the warning. Officer Zachary McFadden, the handling officer, testified he detained Perez in the parking lot, placed Perez in handcuffs for officer safety and later re‑Mirandized him during a lengthy on‑scene investigation while detectives were contacted.

Defense counsel argued Perez was held in handcuffs in a patrol vehicle for multiple hours before detectives could be reached and that custodial conditions and length of detention rendered subsequent statements involuntary. The defense asked the court to suppress statements given while Perez was in custody. The state responded that Perez was Mirandized, that Perez agreed to speak, that officers allowed Perez limited accommodations (including telephone access) and that the investigation steadily progressed; the state asked the court to deny suppression.

Judge Boyd ruled that the court would review the unredacted video and specific time stamps the parties identified to determine voluntariness. The court stated that the parties had stipulated the Miranda warnings were given and were the standard constitutional warnings, but that voluntariness remained the central question. The court admitted the body‑worn and in‑car footage for the suppression hearing and directed counsel to provide timestamps and redacted versions of the footage for review. The court reserved a final ruling on the suppression motion and told counsel to be prepared when court reconvenes. Jurors were instructed not to discuss or research the case and were excused until the next day’s session.

The indictment in the record charges Perez with possessing identifying information of another without effective consent and attempting to negotiate a check containing the complainant’s routing and account numbers (date alleged: March 7, 2025). The court permitted limited testimony that Wells Fargo reviewed Butler’s account and issued reimbursement but limited mention of other checks and check numbers pending the court’s analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The trial was continued to 1:30 p.m. the next day for resumption of proceedings and any remaining pretrial rulings.