Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aggravated Kidnapping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Closing arguments delivered in aggravated-kidnapping case; jury sent to deliberate
Summary
After two days of closing arguments and a detailed jury charge read by Judge Stephanie Boyd, the jury began deliberations in the aggravated-kidnapping trial of Angel Miguel Cepeda Ronda. Prosecutors said physical injuries and a 911 call corroborated the complainant; defense counsel questioned investigative gaps.
SAN ANTONIO — Closing arguments were delivered Thursday in the aggravated-kidnapping trial of Angel Miguel Cepeda Ronda in the 187th District Court, and Judge Stephanie Boyd read the court's charge before sending the jury to deliberate.
The charge of the court outlined the elements jurors must find beyond a reasonable doubt to convict: intentional or knowing abduction with specified intents, the definition of restraint and abduct, and a separate finding on whether a deadly weapon was used. "Members of the jury... the defendant, Angel Miguel Cepeda Ronda, stands charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated kidnapping," Judge Stephanie Boyd told the panel as she read the instructions they will use in deliberations.
The prosecution told jurors the evidence — including photographs and a recorded 911 call — supported the complainant's account that she was attacked inside a barbershop, forced into a vehicle at knife point and taken to an apartment where she was raped. The prosecutor summarized: "She didn't want to be raped vaginally and anally. She tried to escape, yes, by yelling out of a window for help... She finally does. He comes back and takes the phone from her, and that 911 call is ended." The prosecutor said those facts, the state argued, satisfy the elements of aggravated kidnapping and the separate deadly-weapon finding.
In his closing, defense counsel challenged the investigation and pointed to inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and in the state's timeline. The defense highlighted that initial police responses lasted minutes in a busy shopping-center parking lot, that the detective did not seek fingerprints, DNA or a search warrant for the barbershop or apartment, and that photographs relied on by the prosecution were obtained days after the incident. The defense asked jurors to consider whether the state met its burden and urged a not-guilty verdict, arguing the state's case was "a story filled with inconsistencies about everything and nothing to back it up." (Attribution: "defense counsel" as identified in the transcript.)
The complainant, identified in court as Duviella Contreras Perez, testified and provided a written statement that the prosecutor said corroborated the injuries shown in photographs. Prosecutors asked jurors to consider those physical injuries, the 911 call that recorded a hangup from the shopping center, and testimony from law-enforcement witnesses in finding the state's burden met.
After closing arguments, Judge Boyd instructed jurors on legal definitions and how to return a verdict, including a separate unanimous finding on whether the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon. She warned jurors not to use electronic devices, to base deliberations only on admitted evidence and to follow the law as provided by the court. Once the jury retires, the court will await a unanimous verdict.
No verdict was returned on the record Thursday; the jury went to the jury room to begin deliberations. The court recessed pending the jury's decision.
