Garza pleads not guilty; court hears opening statements and disputes over body-worn camera footage

A defendant in a Bexar County case pleaded not guilty as the 2207th Judicial District Court heard opening statements and began resolving disputes over body-worn camera evidence.

At arraignment, the court clerk read an indictment charging Simon Alexander Garza with one count of manslaughter for an Oct. 13, 2023 collision that prosecutors say killed Jose Luis Fernandez. The judge then asked how the defendant pleaded; the defendant answered, “Not guilty.”

The prosecutor told jurors the state will present video, witness testimony and photos to show Garza ran a traffic signal and that “these were reckless actions [that] caused the death of Jose Luis,” and asked jurors to review all admitted evidence before reaching a verdict. Defense counsel responded in opening that jurors should reserve judgment, described the defendant as a 22-year-old with future goals, and said ordinary traffic collisions do not automatically amount to criminal conduct. The defense said evidence will show an alleged open container in the other driver’s car and raised concerns about the thoroughness of the police investigation.

The state called San Antonio Police Department Officer Jonathan Salinas as its first witness. Salinas identified himself and said he was assigned to the overnight patrol division and responded to the collision at West Military Drive and 5 Palms. He testified he arrived on scene within roughly 10 minutes, observed a 2011 Mazda 6 in the middle of the intersection and a 1996 Honda Civic by the curb, and that a male driver in the Civic exhibited very shallow, labored breathing. Salinas testified he dispatched a 10-60 (dead on arrival) and notified the Traffic Investigation Division; he also confirmed his body-worn camera was functioning on the night of the crash.

When the state offered the officer’s body-worn camera recording (marked as State’s Exhibit 1), defense counsel objected to portions of the audio and video as hearsay. The defense specifically argued that background statements from emergency medical technicians, dispatch traffic and a phone call captured on the recording are out-of-court statements that should be excluded or redacted. The prosecutor said certain background sounds and utterances were offered not for their truth but as present sense impressions or as context for the officer’s observations, and said EMT statements had already been redacted from the version provided to defense counsel.

The judge told the parties she would not allow disagreement about whether everyone had viewed the video to govern the ruling: she instructed counsel to identify specific timestamps they contested so the court could rule on precise edits. The judge overruled the defense’s hearsay objection to audible crying heard in the vehicle, saying the state was not offering such background sounds for the truth of any out-of-court assertion. The court accepted the prosecutor’s representation that EMT statements had been redacted and instructed defense counsel to point out any missed portions.

The court ordered that all parties review the video materials until they agreed on the versions to be admitted. Jurors were excused for the day and the judge scheduled continuation of the trial for the next morning at 9:30 a.m. Officer Salinas was excused from the stand pending further proceedings.

What happens next: the court will resolve any remaining redaction disputes for the body-worn camera footage and resume witness testimony at the scheduled 9:30 a.m. session.