Ray Gonzalez, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that appellant forfeited his Sixth Amendment confrontation right because his own wrongdoing—murdering Maria Herrera—made her unavailable, and thus her out‑of‑court statements were admissible. The court applied the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing doctrine even though the wrongdoing was the same crime for which the defendant was charged, and it found no requirement that the defendant intend to silence the witness. The opinion also affirmed the trial court’s admission of the statements under excited‑utterance/dying‑declaration exceptions. Justice Johnson, concurring, agreed with the judgment but argued the statements were admissible as a dying declaration and cautioned against expanding the forfeiture doctrine.