Appellate court affirms to throw out statements in Starr murder case

Statements made by a defendant in a Starr County murder case will not be admissible during trial, an appeals court affirmed Tuesday.

Sebastian Torres

A panel of justices from the 13th Court of Appeals affirmed a previous order issued by a trial judge to not allow the statements made by Sebastian Torres, a Starr County man, to be admitted into evidence, finding that the state did not comply with state law when those statements were taken.

Torres, 20, was arrested in August 2017 in connection to the death of Chayse Olivarez, a Rio Grande City teen who was first reported missing in July 2017 and whose dismembered remains were discovered in a Roma ranch a few weeks later.

Just 16 at the time, Torres was picked up by law enforcement and taken to the Starr County Sheriff’s Office in connection with the alleged crime.

During an interview with law enforcement, Torres revealed the location of Olivarez’s remains and the condition in which they would be found, according to the state.

He was later charged with capital murder and tampering with physical evidence in connection to Olivarez’s death.

The lead defendant in the case, Jose Luis Garcia Jr., was found not guilty on a count of murder and a count of tampering with physical evidence, a human corpse, at the conclusion of his trial in November 2019. Garcia was, however, convicted on one count of tampering with physical evidence with intent to impair for which he was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Garcia’s case is currently on appeal.

Because of Torres’ age, he was a juvenile under the law and thus protected by the Texas Family Code.

As required by that statute, a justice of the peace read Torres his rights after which the teen was then asked if he wanted to make a statement.

Torres initially declined but, hours later, then-Justice of the Peace Jesus Barrera Jr. was called back and told Torres had decided to cooperate, according to Barrera’s testimony during a Nov. 2019 hearing.

Barrera read him his rights again and then Torres signed a document agreeing to make a statement.

A video recording that was played during the November hearing shows Barrera telling Torres that he would request that law enforcement bring Torres back to him after questioning to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily.

Additionally, on two warning forms, Barrera checked off a request for law enforcement to return Torres to him after questioning so he could determine whether Torres’ statements were made voluntarily.

However, Barrera testified that he didn’t meet with Torres afterward and he never determined the voluntariness of his statements.

In their written opinion, the appellate court referred to Sec. 51.095 of the Texas Family Code which states that the magistrate, in this case being Barrera, “may . . . request by speaking on the recording that the officer return the child and the recording to the magistrate at the conclusion of the process of questioning.”

They add, that “if the magistrate decides to make such a request, the magistrate ‘may then view the recording with the child or have the child view the recording’ to determine whether the statements were given voluntarily.”

“Barrera did not ultimately ‘view the recording with the child or have the child view the recording,’ as contemplated in the second part of the statute,” the justices stated, “but nothing in the record indicates that Barrera ever withdrew his decision to invoke the statutory procedure.”

Because of that, they concluded that Barrera used the procedure described in Sec. 51.095 of the family code and by not making a determination of voluntariness of Torres’ statements, they are now inadmissable.

In their conclusion, though, the appellate justices acknowledged their ruling could lead to an unjust outcome in the case.

“We note that this could lead to an unjust result, in that an incriminating statement which voluntarily made — and thus passes constitutional muster — may nevertheless be excluded due only to the magistrate’s invocation of the specific procedure set forth in the statute,” they wrote, adding that they urged Texas lawmakers to amend the law.

“We urge the Legislature to amend the statute to reflect that a statement will be admissible if it is adjudged at any point to be voluntarily made, regardless of whether the magistrate chose to invoke the procedure set forth in (Sec. 51.095).”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to accurately reflect the statements made by the 13th Court of Appeals.