Judge admits body‑worn and surveillance footage despite missing channel in Beaumont homicide case

A judge in the 252nd District Court admitted body‑worn camera clips and a downloaded surveillance hard drive on Thursday during the trial of Leonard Paul Thompson, who is charged in the death of Peggy Ann Pier, while the defense and apartment staff told the court that at least one hallway camera view was not preserved.

The ruling came after prosecutors identified surveillance files provided by Raintree Tower Apartments and played a state officer’s body‑worn recording for the jury. “You will hear and see evidence that the evening of Sept. 12 she got back to her apartment,” prosecutor Mister Nichols told jurors in his opening. Defense counsel Mister Wilkerson told jurors a key surveillance recording that would show movements inside the building “is gone.”

Why it matters: Prosecutors say the footage and scientific evidence will show Thompson was the only person in the apartment before Pier was found dead; the defense says gaps in what was preserved leave unanswered questions about other possible activity or actors on the property.

Prosecutor Nichols read the indictment on the record, identifying the cause number as 23DCCR2145 and telling jurors the state will present witnesses and scientific testimony about wounds found in the autopsy. The judge then permitted the state to begin calling witnesses.

Witnesses from Raintree Tower — including assistant manager Ariel Chapman and property manager Pamela Cagle — described finding Pier unresponsive in her unit on the morning of Sept. 14, 2023, and told the jury that staff initially thought she might have fallen. Chapman testified that staff discovered a package left at Pier’s door and, when Pier did not respond, apartment staff entered and called 911. “I found her on the floor,” Pamela Cagle testified when describing the moment she and staff entered the apartment.

Both property staff and Detective Jeffrey Hancock testified about the apartment’s surveillance system. The property produced a hard drive that the state marked as evidence. When asked in court whether the downloaded files contained every requested camera view, Pamela Cagle testified that channel 4 — a hallway view that shows the hallway leading to Pier’s apartment — “was not provided.” Detective Hancock told the court he had access to the system on the day he reviewed it in the manager’s office and that he spent several hours reviewing footage; he said he reviewed the relevant span from when Pier entered the apartment until management made entry on Sept. 14.

The court overruled the defense’s authentication objections and admitted the state’s exhibits after the detective and property manager laid foundation in open court. The judge said he would allow the state’s body‑worn clips to be published to the jury so long as the proper foundation was presented at trial, while noting defense counsel could cross‑examine witnesses about what recordings were missing.

Testimony also addressed who accessed Pier’s apartment after her death. Charlotte Hudson, who identified herself as a caregiver and as the contact person listed on Pier’s paperwork, testified she received keys from management and later handed Pier’s purse, phone and spare car keys to Pier’s son. Hudson acknowledged taking some items from the apartment with management’s permission; the son later expressed frustration that he was not initially listed on Pier’s paperwork.

Courtroom procedure: The judge placed several witnesses under the rule (prohibiting them from being present for other testimony) and admonished them not to watch proceedings online. After admitting the exhibits and resolving authentication, the judge recessed the trial and directed parties to be ready to resume the next morning.

The trial record shows the state offered surveillance evidence described as “states exhibit 2” (a hard drive of surveillance downloads) and a body‑worn camera file identified as “states exhibit 3.” The court admitted both exhibits after hearing testimony from property staff and Detective Hancock.

What the court did not decide: Witnesses and counsel repeatedly testified that one camera angle was missing from the files provided to law enforcement; the judge said that issue could be explored on cross‑examination but did not exclude the other footage already authenticated and offered into evidence. The court also did not make any factual finding about whether any unpreserved footage would alter the state’s case; jurors will hear the evidence and the cross‑examinations before weighing its significance.

Looking ahead: The state will continue to call investigative and forensic witnesses; the judge said the trial would resume at 9 a.m. the next day. The indictment and the admitted exhibits remain in evidence as the case proceeds.