Judge Allows Zoom Testimony, Denies Directed Verdict and Rejects 'Knife' Definition in State v. Angel Miguel Cepeda

The court in State of Texas v. Angel Miguel Cepeda allowed a barbershop owner to testify remotely by Zoom, denied the defense's motion for a directed verdict on the weapon element and announced it would not include a statutory definition of "knife" in the jury instructions after defense objection. Judge presiding over the trial said, "The court is gonna allow him to testify by Zoom." The action came during ongoing testimony and pre-charge argument on whether the state had proved the weapon element of the indictment.

Why this matters: The question whether the object used meets the statutory or common-law definition of a knife bears directly on a charged offense that alleges use of a blade. Jury instructions about legal definitions could affect the elements the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a bench ruling before the jury returned, John Wright Meyer, defense counsel, moved for a directed verdict arguing the state had not proven the weapon element, saying the complainant described "a razor blade" while the indictment referred to a "knife and or scissors." Prosecutor James responded that, "we do believe that we met that element" and said witness testimony would describe the blade and how it was affixed. The judge denied the defense motion.

The trial record includes testimony from Officer Alejandro Mata, a patrolman with the San Antonio Police Department, who said he responded to an assault-in-progress call at a shopping-center address on or about 05/04/2025. Mata testified he "walked the parking lot" looking for a victim or assailant, did not enter the businesses and recalled no observations that raised suspicion while he was present. Mata estimated he and responding officers were on scene for about five to 10 minutes and described the parking area as "decent sized" and the businesses as close together, making it "theoretically possible to notice something pretty quickly." Mata testified he did not see or hear anything inside the restaurant at the time he was in the lot.

Magdiel Hernandez, who identified himself as the owner of Latin Flow No. 2 barbershop on Evers Road, testified for the defense about the layout and security of the shop. Hernandez said the storefront used a manual interior lock and a key from the outside, required a push or pull in addition to turning the lock, and that the facility had LED lighting inside and outside that provided good visibility.

Late in the day's proceedings, counsel and the court debated jury-charge language. The state sought inclusion of statutory and case-law definitions, including a definition of "knife," to match the complainant's description. After defense objection, the judge said the court would "not gonna allow the definition of knife in the charge based upon defense objection." The court told lawyers it would circulate two versions of the proposed charge — one with the definition and one without — and said it would reconsider if new authority was provided.

The court set closing arguments and instruction review for the next day: the court told the jurors to return at 9 a.m., and the court allowed 20 minutes per side for closing argument.

The trial record shows the court also permitted a Zoom witness and instructed counsel to make sure the remote participant could be heard and use the courtroom microphone for the record. The jury will receive the final charge the judge circulates before deliberations begin.

What's next: Closings are scheduled for 9 a.m. the following day; the jury will receive the court's charge at that time and hear closing arguments.