Obel Cruz-Garcia Murders 6 Yr Old In Texas

Obel Cruz-Garcia was sentenced to death by the State of Texas for the kidnapping and murder of a six year old boy

According to court documents Obel Cruz-Garcia and Carmeno Martinez would force their way into a home where the female would be sexually assaulted by one of the men. The pair would then kidnap six year old Angelo Garcia Jr who would later be stabbed to death

Obel Cruz-Garcia would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Obel Cruz-Garcia Photos

Obel Cruz-Garcia FAQ

Obel Cruz-Garcia Case

On September 30, 1992, two masked intruders broke into an apartment shared by Arturo Rodriguez, Diana Garcia, and Diana Garcia’s six-year-old son, Angelo Garcia, Jr. Diana was awakened by a loud sound coming from her living room. Her husband, Arturo, walked toward the sound but was quickly met by a large male wearing a mask and pointing a gun at him. Both Diana and Arturo testified that this man spoke to them, but neither could understand him because he spoke in an unknown accent. Additionally, they both described the man as “black” or dark-complexioned. When the initial responding officer made his report about this case, he described Diana’s and Arturo’s assailants as “black” but testified at trial that he meant “black Hispanics.”

The masked man instructed Diana to turn face down on her bed and then began beating Arturo. After Diana complied with the instruction to lie face down, a second man entered the room holding a gun, and one of the intruders tied up Diana. Arturo was tied up with the cord from his alarm clock, a rag was put in his mouth, and he was beaten on his head with a gun while he knelt by his bed. At this point, Angelo, who had been sleeping on a pallet by the bed, began crying out for Diana.

The second intruder then started touching Diana on her buttocks, turned her over so that she was lying on her back, and put a blanket over her face. The second intruder removed Diana’s panties and sexually assaulted her. Diana testified that the assailant ejaculated during the sexual assault. Arturo testified that he saw an unknown male sexually assaulting his wife before the other assailant placed a pillowcase over his head. All the while, Angelo was present in the room and crying.

Once the sexual assault ended, the two men ransacked the bedroom and then left. Arturo testified that his passport and a bracelet were missing after the incident. After the men left, Diana got up and untied Arturo’s hands. Diana and Arturo then noticed that Angelo was missing and walked into their living room to look for him. Upon entering their living room, they saw the first, tall, masked intruder returning to the apartment. When Diana and Arturo saw this man, they turned and walked back into their bedroom, and the masked man turned and left the apartment.

After both intruders left, Diana and Arturo left their apartment and began looking for Angelo. They called out his name at their own apartment complex and across the street but received no response. At some point, Diana’s neighbor called 911. Houston Police Department (“HPD”) responded to a 911 call claiming that a child had been kidnapped from Diana and Arturo’s apartment. Upon arriving, officers found Arturo injured and Diana distraught. An inspection of the apartment revealed the bedroom to be in disarray, with drawers pulled out of dressers and items of clothing strewn about. Officers found a cigar in the living room, although at trial both Diana and Arturo testified that neither one of them smoked.

Police officers interviewed Diana and Arturo on-scene and asked them whether they sold drugs. Both were untruthful. Diana was transported to a hospital for a sexual assault examination. A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), Gloria Kologinczok, testified that she performed a sexual assault examination on Diana Garcia during the early morning hours of October 1 and produced a sexual assault kit containing evidence from Diana.

On October 1, 1992, police interviewed Diana at the police station, and she came clean about her and Arturo’s drug dealing. She also told police that appellant was her drug supplier until recently, when she and Arturo had told appellant that they no longer wanted to sell drugs for him. Officer U.P. Hernandez interviewed both Diana and Arturo. Arturo testified that, when he spoke to police, he never lied about his drug dealing, but Officer Hernandez testified to the contrary.

During their investigation, officers also met with or interviewed Leonardo German (friend of Diana and Arturo), Rogelio Rendon, Carmelo Martinez Santana (also known as “Rudy;” friend of appellant), and Angelita Rodriguez (appellant’s wife).

Several witnesses are referred to throughout the record by their nicknames. We will do the same.

At trial, Diana and Arturo both testified about their relationship with appellant. Arturo and Diana sold cocaine for appellant for several years when all three lived in Houston. They also associated socially with appellant and his wife, Angelita, on several occasions. Arturo testified that he considered his relationship with appellant to be a friendly one, and Diana testified that Angelita was her friend. A few months prior to Angelo’s kidnapping, Arturo and Diana told appellant they no longer wanted to sell drugs for him, and Arturo testified that this upset appellant.

Angelita also testified about her relationship with appellant. Her cousin, Rudy, was good friends with appellant, and the three of them moved to Houston from Puerto Rico around the same time in 1989. Angelita and appellant shared an apartment in Humble, a suburb of Houston. Angelita testified that appellant smoked both cigarettes and cigars and that he owned a gold Oldsmobile and a blue Thunderbird. Angelita met Diana and Arturo through appellant because of appellant’s drug dealing.

Angelita learned of Angelo’s disappearance on the news on the afternoon of October 1. Upon hearing of his disappearance, she immediately approached appellant in their apartment and told him that Angelo had gone missing. Angelita told appellant she wanted to go see Diana and Arturo, but he refused to go with her. Angelita testified that appellant seemed calm and “normal” upon hearing the news that Angelo had disappeared, despite the fact that Diana and Arturo were their friends and their child had gone missing. Appellant then told Angelita that he was leaving Houston for Puerto Rico immediately and began to pack his bags.

Angelita testified that, due to his sudden departure from Houston, appellant missed a scheduled court date. He had never missed one prior to that. After appellant left for Puerto Rico, Angelita could not afford to continue paying rent in their Humble apartment, so she moved to a hotel in Pasadena. Some time later, Angelita went to the Dominican Republic, where appellant was then living, to ask him for a divorce. Appellant refused. Angelita then asked him about Angelo, and appellant confessed to her that he had killed him.

Rudy, Angelita’s cousin, testified that he met appellant when they were both living in Puerto Rico, prior to their initial move to Houston. Both are originally from the Dominican Republic. Rudy and appellant moved to Houston to sell drugs in the late 1980s, and Angelita followed them shortly thereafter. Rudy and appellant worked together selling drugs until Rudy’s drug addiction became too severe for him to continue dealing. At that point, appellant took over the operation. Rudy testified that appellant was a violent, angry, and controlling person. Once when appellant thought Rudy was stealing drug customers from him, he assaulted Rudy and threatened to kill him.

Rudy testified that appellant owned three cars: a blue Chevrolet, a blue Thunderbird, and a gold Oldsmobile. Appellant routinely lent the Oldsmobile to Bienviendo Melo (also known as “Charlie”). On September 30, appellant drove his blue Chevrolet to Diana and Arturo’s apartment to collect his drugs and money. Rudy and Rogelio Aviles (also known as “Roger”) went with him. Rudy described Roger as tall, strongly built, and dark-complexioned. Appellant parked his car behind Diana and Arturo’s apartment complex and instructed Rudy to sit in the passenger seat while he and Roger went inside. Appellant took a .45 caliber pistol with him, Roger carried a knife, and both appellant and Roger wore black stocking masks.

Approximately thirty minutes after appellant and Roger left the car, appellant came back with a child in his arms. Rudy recognized the child as Angelo Garcia, Jr. When Rudy asked why appellant was carrying Angelo, appellant responded, “He saw me.”

Rudy tried to persuade appellant to retrieve Diana to care for Angelo. Appellant left the car for the apartment again, leaving Angelo with Rudy, but returned with Roger instead of Diana. When appellant returned, he told Rudy to sit in the back seat with Angelo. Appellant maintained a grip on his gun while he drove Rudy, Angelo, and Roger to Baytown. Appellant stopped the car not far into Baytown, and all three men exited the car. Rudy testified that by this time he was very scared and had grown convinced appellant was going to kill Angelo.

Appellant told Roger, “You already know what you have to do.” Rudy testified that he walked away from the two other men and then became ill, defecating nearby. As Rudy was walking away, he heard Angelo scream. Rudy returned to the car where he saw Angelo with blood on his chest. Appellant ordered Rudy and Roger to put Angelo’s body in the backseat, and they complied.

Appellant drove them to another location in Baytown near a waterway and ordered Rudy and Roger to put Angelo’s body in the water. The two men once again complied. Rudy and Roger piled rocks on top of Angelo’s body to make it sink. Rudy testified that appellant had his gun with him the entire time. The three men then left Baytown and drove to Pasadena. On their way there, several of their tires blew out.

They managed to make it to a hotel where appellant made Rudy and Roger swear they would never tell what had happened to Angelo. At the hotel, the men attempted to make other transportation arrangements by calling Charlie. Appellant, Rudy, and Roger eventually went to Charlie’s apartment in a taxi, where they retrieved appellant’s car. There, Rudy saw Charlie and his girlfriend, Linda.

Linda also testified about appellant’s phone call to Charlie. In the early morning hours of October 1, 1992, Linda and Charlie were staying together at Linda’s mother’s house when they received several phone calls from appellant. Linda and Charlie were both familiar with appellant because Charlie sold drugs for appellant. Linda described appellant as controlling.

When Charlie finally answered the phone around 2:00 a.m., appellant asked Charlie to pick him up. Charlie declined. Approximately thirty minutes later, appellant and Rudy appeared at Charlie’s house to borrow a car. Linda testified that, while Rudy appeared nervous, appellant did not. After October 1, 1992, Linda never saw appellant again. Prior to that date, appellant visited Linda and Charlie’s residence several times a week.

Later in the day on October 1, Rudy and appellant took appellant’s blue Chevrolet to Rendon’s Garage to have the tires changed. At this time, appellant told Rudy that appellant was leaving Houston. Rudy helped appellant wash Angelo’s blood and vomit from the interior of the car. Appellant then sold the car and used the money to buy a plane ticket to Puerto Rico. Rudy drove appellant to the airport the following day, October 2, 1992, and he did not see appellant again until they both returned to Houston for appellant’s capital murder trial.

Agent William Ebersole testified that he interviewed Rudy while Rudy was in a federal prison in Pennsylvania. Agent Ebersole obtained a statement from Rudy about what happened the night of September 30, 1992, and about appellant’s involvement in Angelo’s murder.

On cross-examination of both Rudy and Agent Ebersole, defense counsel highlighted inconsistencies between Rudy’s trial testimony and the statement he gave to Agent Ebersole while imprisoned. Rudy omitted from his story to Agent Ebersole any reference to him defecating while Angelo was being killed. Rudy told Agent Ebersole that he was familiar with the Baytown area because he had sold drugs there prior to September 30, 1992, but Rudy denied this at trial. Rudy told Agent Ebersole that Roger took Angelo to the rear of the driver’s side of the car and that is where he killed him while appellant stood near the front of the car, but this did not exactly comport with Rudy’s trial testimony.

While Rudy testified at trial that appellant threatened him and ordered him not to tell anyone what the three of them did to Angelo, Agent Ebersole’s notes reflected that the three merely made a pact to keep their secret. Additionally, Rudy’s recollection of how long appellant and Roger were in Diana and Arturo’s apartment and how many tires blew out on their car once they left Baytown was inconsistent with the recollection given to Agent Ebersole.

During their investigation into Angelo’s kidnapping, local police officials learned that Diana and Arturo had rented an apartment in Humble for appellant and his wife. When HPD officers went to that apartment to look for appellant on October 5, 1992, they found it vacated. Additionally, officers learned that, prior to it being vacated, the apartment had been occupied by two “black-Hispanic males” and one light-skinned Hispanic female.

One of the men who had occupied the Humble apartment had been seen wearing a shirt from Rendon’s Garage with the name Luis on it. Upon learning this, officers went to Rendon’s Garage where they met with Juanita Rendon, the wife of the owner, Rogelio Rendon. Rogelio was initially unavailable to speak with officers. Officer Hernandez returned to the garage and observed Rogelio driving up in a blue Thunderbird. Rogelio was accompanied by a man who identified himself as Candido Lebron. While Officer Hernandez was speaking with Rogelio, Angelita and Rudy came to the garage to claim the blue Thunderbird.

The next day, on October 6, HPD received a tip that a Hispanic male was seen at the Humble apartment. HPD officers returned to the apartment, knocked on the door, and were met by an individual who again identified himself as Candido Lebron. They later learned his true name was Rogelio Aviles (also known as “Roger,” the third adult male with appellant and Rudy on the night of September 30, 1992). HPD officers continued to look for appellant in Houston and surrounding cities but were unable to locate him.

FBI Agent Eric Johnson testified that he became involved in the current case in 1992 because it involved the kidnapping of a child under the age of twelve. The FBI worked in conjunction with local authorities in an attempt to locate Angelo. Appellant was a suspect early on in the FBI’s investigation. During his investigation, Agent Johnson learned that on October 8, 1992, appellant was set to appear in a Harris County district court on an unrelated felony drug case.

Agent Johnson testified from court documents that reflected that appellant was scheduled to appear in court on October 8, 1992, that appellant failed to appear in court on that date, and that his bond was subsequently forfeited for this failure to appear.

On the afternoon of November 4, 1992, a fisherman walking the banks of Goose Creek in Baytown discovered Angelo’s body. Because of a cold front that had blown through the area, eight to ten feet of beach that was normally submerged was exposed; this is where Angelo’s body was found. Baytown Police Corporal Randy Rhodes was dispatched to the waterway.

Upon arriving, he observed the skeletal remains of a small child on the sandy part of the beach. The skeleton was mostly intact, but the skull had disconnected from the torso, and some rib bones and vertebrae had been disturbed. From the same area, officers also recovered a pair of shorts with a Batman logo and a t-shirt. Diana testified that Angelo had been wearing Batman pajamas on the night he was kidnapped.

An autopsy was performed on Angelo’s remains in 1992 by Dr. Vladimir Parungao. Dr. Parungao was no longer employed by the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences at the time of trial, so Harris County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Dwayne Wolf, testified at trial. After reviewing photographs and Angelo’s autopsy report, Dr. Wolf testified that Angelo’s manner of death was homicide and that his body appeared in a state that was consistent with it having been submerged for several weeks. The fact that Angelo was abducted, that his body was found in an advanced state of decomposition, and that his body was found many miles from his home all contributed to Dr. Wolf’s opinion that Angelo was murdered.

Dr. Wolf also examined the clothing found near Angelo’s body and testified that any blood that may have been on the clothing would have washed away after the clothing was submerged in water. On cross-examination, Dr. Wolf confirmed that he did not find any injuries to any of Angelo’s bones and that he could not rule out drowning as a cause of death.

DNA evidence was also presented at trial. Sergeant Eric Mehl worked in the cold case division of HPD in 2007 when this case was reopened. As part of his investigation, Sergeant Mehl submitted several pieces of evidence to a private forensics lab called Orchid Cellmark for DNA testing. Sergeant Mehl sent the cigar that was collected from the crime scene, Diana’s sexual assault kit, and a cutting from the pair of panties Diana was wearing the night of her sexual assault. The cutting from Diana’s panties was a cutting from the crotch area. From that cutting, Orchid Cellmark cut away a small piece on which they performed their testing. Orchid Cellmark developed an unidentified male DNA profile from these pieces of evidence.

Orchid Cellmark was called “Cellmark Forensics” at the time of trial.

Matt Quartaro, a supervisor of forensics at Orchid Cellmark, testified about the DNA testing his lab performed after it received evidence from Sergeant Mehl. After testing the cigar, Orchid Cellmark was able to generate a full DNA profile of an unknown male. This profile was compared to the profiles of Diana and Arturo, but it did not match either of them.

Orchid Cellmark also tested vaginal swabs from the sexual assault kit. The vaginal swabs contained a mixture of epithelial cells and sperm cells. The epithelial cells belonged to Diana, and the sperm cells belonged to more than one male individual. Arturo could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm-cell fraction from the vaginal swab. Additionally, the unknown male whose DNA was found on the cigar could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm-cell fraction from the vaginal swab.

When Orchid Cellmark tested the portion of the panties they had received, they once again found Diana’s epithelial cells and a sperm-cell fraction with more than one contributor. The unknown male from the cigar DNA sample could not be excluded as a major contributor to the sperm sample in the panties. Additionally, Arturo could not be excluded as a contributor to that sperm sample.

Later, in December 2007, Orchid Cellmark received DNA samples from Roger, Charlie, Leonardo German, and Rudy to compare to the DNA profiles they had obtained from the cigar, sexual assault kit, and panties. Roger, Charlie, and Leonardo were all excluded as contributors to any of the DNA evidence found on the cigar, sexual assault kit, and panties.

The first sample received from Rudy was not sufficient to compare to the DNA profiles Orchid Cellmark had obtained. In June of 2011, Orchid Cellmark received a second DNA sample from Rudy and at that time was able to exclude him as a contributor to any of the DNA on the evidence that Orchid Cellmark tested.

In early 2008, Sergeant Mehl learned that appellant was in Puerto Rico. Sergeant Mehl, working in conjunction with the FBI in Puerto Rico, obtained a DNA sample from appellant on May 23, 2008. He then sent that DNA sample to Orchid Cellmark. On May 28, 2008, Orchid Cellmark received a sample of appellant’s DNA. The sample arrived in a sealed envelope with appellant’s name written on it.

Appellant’s DNA matched the profile that had been obtained from the cigar found in Diana and Arturo’s apartment in September of 1992. Additionally, appellant’s DNA could not be excluded as a contributor to the unknown male profile found on the vaginal swabs from Diana’s sexual assault kit. Lastly, appellant’s DNA matched the unknown male profile that was the major contributor to the DNA in the sperm-cell fraction from Diana’s panties.

Quartaro also discussed the quality-control procedures in place at Orchid Cellmark to prevent contamination of the evidence they receive and the profiles they obtain. Quartaro acknowledged that Orchid Cellmark cannot implement or monitor quality-control procedures at other labs. But on redirect, Quartaro testified that none of the evidence that he received appeared to be contaminated. All the evidence appeared to be in good condition; it was packaged separately to prevent cross-contamination, and all containers were sealed. Quartaro also testified that it would be impossible to contaminate a sample in such a way that appellant’s DNA would appear on that sample unless the contaminator had some of appellant’s DNA.

Moreover, Quartaro testified that cross-contamination between the cigar and the sexual assault kit or panties was not possible because appellant’s epithelial cells were found on the cigar, while appellant’s sperm cells were found on the swabs from the sexual assault kit and the panties. Additionally, no epithelial cells belonging to appellant were found in the samples from the sexual assault kit or panties.

The Houston Police Department Crime Lab was also involved in DNA analysis in the instant case. Courtney Head, an analyst from the crime lab, testified that in February 2010 she received a known DNA sample from appellant. This sample was collected separately from the sample collected and sent to Orchid Cellmark in 2008. From this sample, Head performed her own DNA extraction to create a DNA profile. She then compared that profile to the profiles obtained by Orchid Cellmark from the cigar, the sexual assault kit, and the panties.

Appellant could not be excluded as a contributor to the male DNA profile found on the cigar and the vaginal swabs from the sexual assault kit. Additionally, appellant could not be excluded as the major contributor to a male DNA profile in the sperm-cell fraction obtained from Diana’s panties. Head testified that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, appellant was the source of the DNA profile on the cigar and the panties.

Pursuant to his cold case investigation, Sergeant Mehl interviewed Diana, Arturo, Linda Hernandez, and Angelita Rodriguez. A Spanish-speaking officer interviewed Rudy. Sergeant Mehl attempted to locate Charlie for an interview but was unable to find him. At the conclusion of his investigation, Sergeant Mehl filed charges against appellant. Appellant was later tried and convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

https://casetext.com/case/cruz-garcia-v-state-3