Prosecutors introduce crime‑scene findings including 9mm shell casing and gunshot‑residue kit

San Antonio Police Department crime‑scene investigators and patrol supervisors told jurors on April 23, 2017, that officers found a 9mm shell casing near the body at the Chick‑fil‑A parking lot linked to case SAPD17089350.

The testimony focused on how evidence was identified, documented and packaged for the property room. Kasr Umler, identified on the record as a crime‑scene investigator, testified that she assisted at the scene, prepared a sketch and located a shell casing she described as “a 9 millimeter” and that the gunshot‑residue (GSR) collection she performed was secured and labeled for the property room. “The SAPD case number is, SAPD17089350,” Umler said while identifying her report.

Why it matters: the casing, the accompanying GSR kit and the state’s scene photographs are central to linking a shooting that left a man dead with other pieces of physical evidence and surveillance shown to the jury.

Details of processing and packaging were explained in court. Umler said the GSR kit used two vials, one per hand, and that she followed the department’s procedures for sealing and labeling the samples before turning them into the property room. She described preparing a crime‑scene sketch (admitted as an exhibit) and identified a placard labeled E1 on the sketch that corresponded to a shell casing observed at the scene.

Sergeant Robert Mount and Detective Matthew Flores also testified about on‑scene observations. Mount said a shell casing was visible in a crevice near the victim; he read the headstamp and testified he could identify the maker and caliber, stating it was “a Blazer Luger, 9 millimeter round.” Mount said he did not pick up the casing because CSIs would process it for fingerprints and DNA.

The state introduced physical items later identified at the property room and offered them into evidence. During the testimony the defense pressed that different CSIs may have applied the same E1/E2/E3 labels in different ways while multiple investigators worked the scene; witnesses acknowledged multiple CSIs used their own evidence labels and that barcoding was completed later at a crime‑lab office.

The testimony established the existence and chain of documentation for the items introduced at trial; defense counsel objected at various points to aspects of the foundation and relied on cross‑examination to highlight gaps in who physically collected or processed particular items.

A limited final note: several officers testified that Kimberly Wong, identified in reports as an evidence technician, marked and collected some items (including the bagged casing and other evidence). Wong was not on the stand; several witnesses referred to her report and to markings bearing her initials when describing how evidence was labeled and later logged into the property room.