Madeline D. Willis v. Roy D. Cantrell, Amanda M. Cantrell, Troy D. Cantrell, and Stacy L. Cantrell--Appeal from 75th District Court of Liberty County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2005 » Madeline D. Willis v. Roy D. Cantrell, Amanda M. Cantrell, Troy D. Cantrell, and Stacy L. Cantrell--Appeal from 75th District Court of Liberty County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-05-00148-CV

Case Date: 10/20/2005

Plaintiff: Frank C. Vasquez

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 106th District Court of Dawson County

Preview:Frank C. Vasquez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
106th District Court of Dawson County
Opinion filed January 5, 2006
Opinion filed January 5, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-04-00156-CR
FRANK C. VASQUEZ, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03-6038
O P I N I O N
In a multiple count indictment, Frank C. Vasquez was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault, two
counts of indecency with a child by touching, and one count of indecency with a child by exposure. The jury convicted
appellant on each count and found the enhancement paragraph to be true. The jury assessed appellant=s punishment at
confinement for life and a $10,000 fine on each aggravated sexual assault conviction, confinement for life and a
$10,000 fine on each indecency with a child by touching conviction, and twenty years confinement and a $10,000 fine
on the indecency with a child by exposure conviction. We affirm.
In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the victim=s hearsay statements
through two witnesses. At trial, Jo Ann Meraz, the victim=s cousin, testified that the victim said appellant touched the
victim inappropriately. Jo Ann Sarabia, a caseworker with the Children=s Advocacy Center of Midland, testified that
she interviewed the victim. The interview was recorded, and the videotape was played for the jury. Appellant objected
prior to the testimony of both Meraz and Sarabia that the State did not comply with the notice requirements set out in
Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 38.072 (Vernon 2005). Appellant also complains on appeal that the trial court did not
conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the reliability of the statements.
Article 38.072, section 1 contains an exception to the hearsay rule. Testimony of a child=s out-of-court statements is
admissible if the child is twelve years of age or younger and is the victim of a sexual offense. Article 38.072, section 2
provides:
(a) This article applies only to statements that describe the alleged offense that:
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8121.html[8/20/2013 7:28:09 PM]

(1) were made by the child against whom the offense was allegedly committed; and
(2) were made to the first person, 18 years of age or older, other than the defendant, to whom the child made a
statement about the offense.
(b) A statement that meets the requirements of Subsection (a) of this article is not inadmissible because of the hearsay
rule if:
(1) on or before the 14th day before the date the proceeding begins, the party intending to offer the statement:
(A) notifies the adverse party of its intention to do so;
(B) provides the adverse party with the name of the witness through whom it intends to offer the statement; and
(C) provides the adverse party with a written summary of the statement;
(2) the trial court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the statement is reliable based on
the time, content, and circumstances of the statement; and
(3) the child testifies or is available to testify at the proceeding in court or in any other manner provided by law.
Once a hearsay objection is made, the State has the burden to prove compliance with Article 38.072. Long v State, 800
S.W.2d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The record does not show that the State provided appellant with notice of its
intent to use the statement of Meraz fourteen days prior to trial or that the trial court determined the reliability of the
statement as required by Article 38.072. The provisions of Article 38.072 are mandatory; therefore, the trial court erred
in admitting Meraz=s testimony relating to the statements that the victim made to her. Long, 800 S.W.2d at 547;
Gabriel v. State, 973 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App.CWaco 1998, no pet.). Having found error in the admission of the
testimony, we must determine whether appellant was harmed by the error. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2.
The purpose of the notice requirement of Article 38.072 is to prevent a defendant from being surprised at trial by
testimony about the victim=s outcry statements. Gabriel, 973 S.W.2d at 719. Courts have considered whether the
defendant was surprised by the outcry evidence and whether the defendant was prejudiced by a lack of notice in
determining whether the error was harmful. Gabriel, 973 S.W.2d at 720.
The record shows that appellant was provided with a copy of Meraz=s statement more than fourteen days prior to trial.
Appellant only complains that he was not given written notification of the State=s intent to use Meraz=s statement at
trial as required by Article 38.072. Therefore, appellant has not shown that he was surprised by Meraz=s testimony.
Moreover, the victim testified at trial that appellant touched the victim=s Abottom@ with appellant=s Aprivates.@ The
victim further stated that appellant told the victim to kiss appellant=s Aprivates@ and Abottom.@ The victim testified
that Meraz was the first person he told about the Abad things@ appellant had done to him. The State also presented the
testimony of Patricia Ann Salazar, a nurse who examined the victim. Salazar testified that the victim said appellant put
his Aprivate@ in the victim=s Abottom@ and that appellant made the victim kiss appellant=s Aprivate.@ Salazar
stated that the victim had Aa thickening of the anal skin folds@ which is consistent with anal penetration. After
reviewing the entire record, we believe that the error in admitting Meraz=s testimony did not have a substantial and
injurious effect or influence in determining the jury=s verdict. Rule 44.2; King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997); see Divine v. State, 122 S.W.3d 414 (Tex.App.CTexarkana 2003, pet. ref=d); see also Gabriel, 973
S.W.2d at 720.
Next, we turn to appellant=s complaints that the trial court erred in admitting Sarabia=s testimony. The jury heard a
videotape of Sarabia=s interview with the victim. Appellant=s attorney stated at trial:
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8121.html[8/20/2013 7:28:09 PM]

Now, I don=t have an objection to, I guess, the tape being offered, although I - - I do object to it on the basis that it
was provided so late in the game. But I do have an objection to her testifying, and the question being asked whether or
not, you know, [the victim] is being truthful, in her opinion, about that. That=s my problem.
The record does not show that the State provided appellant with notice of its intent to use Sarabia=s testimony.
However, Sarabia did not testify on direct examination about any statements the victim made to her, and she did not
state her opinion on the victim=s truthfulness. Article 38.072 is not applicable to the videotape. Divine, 122 S.W.3d at
419. The record does show that the State made the videotape available to appellant. Viewing all of the evidence, we
find that any error in admitting Sarabia=s testimony or the videotape did not have a substantial and injurious effect or
influence in determining the jury=s verdict. Rule 44.2. Appellant=s sole point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
January 5, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8121.html[8/20/2013 7:28:09 PM]

Download 8121.pdf