Prosecutors Rest After Fingerprint, Cell‑site and Ballistics Evidence in Ashbaugh Shooting Trial

Prosecutors in Bexar County District Court rested their case in the trial of defendant Tyler Ashbaugh after presenting fingerprint, cellphone‑tower and firearms‑matching evidence and admitting multiple exhibits into evidence. The defense then called Ashbaugh to the stand, where he acknowledged firing three shots into the ground but denied having aimed at police or at any vehicle.

The state’s evidence included testimony from a latent‑print examiner, a cell‑site analyst and a firearms examiner. Sandra Ruiz, a latent fingerprint examiner for the San Antonio Police Department, testified that she examined five lifted prints from the scene and identified a legible print on one card she said matched Ashbaugh’s known prints, identifying it to the left thumb found on a detached rear‑view mirror submitted in evidence.

Sergeant Christopher Lloyd of the San Antonio Police Department’s homicide unit described automated analysis he conducted with a program called CellHawk. Lloyd testified the phone associated with the defendant showed usage consistent with a bar near Nacogdoches and O’Connor between about 1:10 a.m. and 2 a.m., then registered on a different cell‑sector closer to the area of the reported shooting at about 2:01 a.m.; his animated exhibit tracing movements also showed later pings consistent with a hotel on the I‑35 corridor and with the suspect’s residence in the early morning.

Forensic scientist supervisor Holly Wharton of the Bexar County crime lab testified that she test‑fired the 9‑millimeter pistol entered as an item in evidence and compared the laboratory test firings with cartridge cases recovered from the scene and vehicle. Wharton told the court she determined that three spent 9‑millimeter cartridge cases and one unfired 9‑millimeter cartridge had tool‑mark signatures that matched the laboratory test firings from that 9‑millimeter pistol; she also testified that 13 fired .40‑caliber cartridge cases recovered in the investigation matched a separate .40‑caliber Smith & Wesson pistol examined in the case.

The court also heard testimony from Tatiana Martinez de Escobar, who identified herself as Ashbaugh’s wife. She testified about text messages and her contact with the defendant the night of the incident, said she did not see him return until the next morning, and told the court that firearms were kept in their residence and that Ashbaugh had at times asked others to account for his whereabouts.

After the state rested, the defense put Ashbaugh on the stand. Ashbaugh testified that on the night in question he had been drinking, went to a local bar, then left with a friend. He acknowledged that he discharged his 9‑millimeter pistol, testifying, “Yes. I did,” when asked whether he had fired the weapon that night, but he insisted he fired into the ground in an open field because he could not get to a gun range and feared he would lose access to his father’s vehicle. Ashbaugh said that after firing three shots he felt his vehicle was struck and that he fled because he believed someone was shooting at him; he repeatedly denied intentionally firing at any police officer, vehicle or person.

Defense counsel argued during trial that the state had not proved a specific intent to shoot at officers or a vehicle. The judge denied a defense motion for a directed verdict on counts alleging aggravated assault and on the count charging discharge of a firearm at or in the direction of a vehicle or individuals, finding that the state had presented sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. The court also denied a defense request to force the state to elect between alternative paragraphs of one count.

The trial record shows the prosecution admitted demonstrative and laboratory exhibits — including fingerprint envelopes, CellHawk animations and firearms comparison materials — without objection. After admitting those exhibits and resting, the state requested the defense proceed; the defense called Ashbaugh and his testimony continued into the late session. The court indicated the trial will continue with additional evidence and argument on the next scheduled session.

No verdict was delivered during the hearing; the matter remains before the jury and the court.