Judge Boyd allows in-court fingerprinting and photographs, admits surveillance screenshot in State v. Luis Beltran

BEXAR COUNTY, Texas — During proceedings in the 187th Judicial District Court on the case identified in the transcript as 2024 CR 4295, Judge Stephanie Boyd granted the state's requests to fingerprint and photograph the defendant in court and admitted a surveillance still offered by the prosecution. The state also called and questioned a store employee, Sharon Martinez, who described a robbery at Sugarleaf Smoke Shop on Aug. 4, 2023.

The ruling matters because the fingerprinting and photographs were authorized to aid identification, and the court admitted a blown-up screenshot from store surveillance that the defense had objected to on grounds of chain of custody and alteration. Prosecutors told the court they had found latent prints linked to the defendant and that clearer photos were needed to document identifying marks prosecutors say were visible on the defendant at the time of the offense.

Judge Stephanie Boyd opened the docket by calling the matter, saying, "The court is calling 2024 c r 4295 state versus Luis Beltran. Can I have parties announce?" She later stated for the record, "So the court will note for the record that it's agreed that he is to be fingerprinted in court," after defense counsel voiced limited objections tied to relevancy and prior-history concerns. The court signed the state's motion to have the defendant fingerprinted in open court.

On the state's motion to photograph the defendant, prosecutors said they sought photos of "a mole on the defendant's face, the scar on his face, and then a tattoo on his neck in the back" for identification purposes. Defense counsel raised relevance and privacy concerns but did not object to photos of the defendant's face and neck. Judge Boyd ordered that photographs of the face and neck be taken and allowed additional photographs of the chest and full back while noting the court had not ruled those images would automatically be admitted into evidence.

Defense counsel also made an oral motion in limine seeking to exclude references to other arrests and alleged offenses that the state might raise, arguing such material would be prejudicial. The court instructed the parties to approach outside the jury's presence before asking questions that might introduce allegations beyond the indictment and said it would excuse the jury for rulings on those matters.

The state offered surveillance video and a derived still labeled State's Exhibit 2. The defense objected to admission of the photograph, arguing it had been altered or enlarged and had not been produced earlier in discovery. The prosecutor established foundation through witness testimony from store employee Sharon Martinez, who said she provided the original video to police on the day of the robbery. After argument, Judge Boyd overruled the defense objections and admitted State's Exhibit 2 into evidence.

Martinez testified that on Aug. 4, 2023, two suspects entered Sugarleaf Smoke Shop at about 2 p.m.; one suspect produced a firearm, ordered her to the ground, zip-tied her wrists and ankles and placed a T-shirt over her head. Martinez identified a mole under the suspect's left eye and a tattoo on the back of his neck and told the jury, "I was gonna die," when asked what was going through her mind while she lay on the floor. She estimated the value of the stolen merchandise as "close to 10,000." Deputy Alejandro Chacon, called by the state, testified he responded to the scene, saw zip ties and surveillance footage, and concluded the footage showed a robbery.

The indictment was read into the record; the defendant, Luis Beltran, pleaded not guilty to the counts presented. The court swore the jurors for the trial and recessed, instructing jurors to return the next day; the judge directed that proceedings resume the following day at 1:30 p.m., with jurors asked to report earlier for parking.

No final ruling on admissibility of any chest/back photographs for trial purposes was announced — Judge Boyd said they could be taken and the parties would have an opportunity to argue relevance before any such images were received by the jury. The court reiterated that if the state intended to introduce allegations outside the indictment, counsel should approach before questioning and the court would rule outside the jury's presence.

The actions taken at the hearing — fingerprinting in court, agreement to photograph the defendant (face and neck, and permitted chest/back photographs for the record), and admission of the surveillance screenshot — will be part of the trial record as the case proceeds.

The court set the next trial session for the following day at 1:30 p.m., and the case will proceed with the evidence and witness testimony already admitted.