Opening statements and Grogan testimony detail 2002 shooting at 907 Angela

A Bexar County grand jury’s true bill charging Jose Mejia with the April 2002 shooting of Leroy Campos was read in the 170th Judicial District Court, and prosecutors told jurors they will show that Mejia returned to 907 Angela with a shotgun and killed Campos while wounding two others.

In an opening statement, a prosecutor said jurors would hear testimony and see photographs and other evidence tying the defendant to the April 25–26, 2002 incident in the Casiano Homes complex, including witness accounts and physical evidence. "Your home is supposed to be your safe haven," the prosecutor told the jury, framing the case as the breach of that safety when, the state says, the defendant brought a firearm into the apartment and shot the occupants.

Defense counsel countered in opening remarks that the evidence is not consistent and argued another man — identified in testimony by a street name as "Menace" and later referenced as Andrew Rodriguez — carried the gun. "My client was not there," defense counsel told the jury, urging jurors to weigh inconsistent statements among witnesses.

The state’s first witness, retired San Antonio Police Department patrol officer Michael Grogan, testified that he was the initial responding officer at the 907 Angela apartment. Grogan, who said he served roughly 27 years with SAPD, described clearing the downstairs, finding extensive blood on the stairs and in the bedroom upstairs, and locating multiple victims: a man later identified in records as the deceased, a woman on the bed who had been shot in the hip/upper leg and arm, and a young child who the witness said had limited injuries.

Grogan identified and authenticated a set of photographs the state moved into evidence. The court admitted State’s exhibits 2–57 without objection; Grogan walked the jury through images showing the front door, the living area, stair blood patterns, the bedroom with the deceased slumped over a table, and bedding soaked with blood. He described a contact wound to the back of the deceased’s head that, in his observation, was consistent with a close-range shotgun blast.

On the bedroom floor and under the bed, Grogan said he observed multiple expended shotgun shells. He explained to the jury the difference between shotgun ammunition types and identified two red shells consistent with birdshot and a green shell that he said appeared to be a slug. He also described several evidence markers placed next to items the crime-scene team photographed and explained the appearance of a deformed projectile in one photograph.

Grogan testified that early witness information — including clothing descriptions for two people who ran from the apartment, a partial license-plate number recorded as "375," and a description of the suspect vehicle as an older Cutlass — was used to broadcast a lookout to patrol units that night. The witness said some identifying details were recorded in one of three written reports he prepared that night; defense counsel stressed differences among the reports and pressed Grogan on when names and descriptions were recorded or relayed by night‑CID detectives.

Grogan also identified two people who were outside the apartment when he arrived and later provided statements (identified in his reports as Yolanda and Roger). The defense sought to prevent the jury from hearing some hearsay about names and emphasized that certain suspect names were not placed on Grogan’s suspect page; the court sustained hearsay objections where applicable.

At the close of the state’s examination, the court admitted the photographs and excused Grogan subject to recall. The state called its next witness, identified in court as Dr. Fitzgerald, and the trial proceeded to further testimony.

The day’s developments: the indictment was read; prosecutors presented their theory and photographic evidence; a retired SAPD officer testified about the scene, shells, a partial plate and witness contacts; and defense counsel focused on inconsistencies and an alternate suspect identification. The trial continued with additional witnesses called by the state.

Provenance: The article is based on the state’s opening and the testimony of officer Michael Grogan as recorded in court proceedings; exhibits 2–57 were admitted into evidence during the same testimony.

Next procedural step: the state called its next witness and Grogan was left subject to recall.