Testimony in Edgar Aguilar trial: officer tased suspect; investigator says video corroborates maneuvered vehicle and acceleration toward victims

The 187th District Court heard testimony and received evidence in State v. Edgar Aguilar, a case in which the state alleges Aguilar used a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon during an incident on March 16, 2023.

Corporal Trey Lawler of the Castle Hills Police Department testified he responded to a report near Northwest Loop 410, followed a suspect on foot and attempted to restrain the person by taking his wrist behind his back. Lawler said he deployed a Taser after the suspect shouted “do it” and “I announced taser 3 times, and I pulled the trigger and tased him.” Lawler testified officers later detained the man, who was searched; the officer said he found about $135 and a pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine, and that body-worn camera footage and dashcam images from his patrol unit were admitted as State’s exhibits.

Paramedic Miguel Bermeno of Acadian Ambulance testified he treated the suspect at the scene and observed an obvious head laceration; Bermeno said the patient reported consuming alcohol and “ice” (methamphetamine) and that he exhibited confusion consistent with recent ingestion.

Investigator Richard Martinez of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, who led the follow-up investigation, said he reviewed video of the incident and that the footage ‘‘corroborates everything that the complaints were telling me.’’ Martinez described what he said were intentional maneuvers: the suspect allegedly reversed and then accelerated the pickup toward the complainants’ vehicle, producing tire smoke and rocking the vehicle. Martinez said he believed there was probable cause for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sought an arrest warrant; he also led a photo lineup that produced two positive identifications by complainants.

The state offered and the court admitted multiple exhibits including maps, body-worn camera footage and still photos taken from footage (State’s Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). Defense counsel cross-examined the investigator on timing of his review of the video and on vehicle damage; the defense argued some elements could indicate property damage or criminal mischief rather than aggravated assault.

At the close of evidence the State rested and the defense rested. The court instructed the jury on the next steps and recessed the panel until the trial resumes the following morning. The judge reminded jurors they must rely only on evidence presented in court.

Ending: The trial was not concluded; both sides will present closing arguments and the court will reconvene the jury for continued proceedings.