i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 34 3- CR Roberto B enito M ON TIEL , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 406th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CRS-774-D4 Honora ble Osca r J. Hale, J r., Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 5, 2010 AFF I RMED I n a sing le issue on appea l, Roberto Be nito Monti el cha lleng es his conviction for inde cenc y wi th a c hil d by c on ta c t, as se rt ingthat th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ngthe de sig nate d o utc ry wi tne ss to t e sti fy . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.04
- 09
- 00 34 3- CR

1 ... C a rm e n is t h e p se u d o n ym us e d to re fer to the c o m p la ina n t at tria l.

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Duringan outcr

y hear ing he ld outside the jury ’s pre sence , J esus Gonzalez testified that when Carmen, 1 his step-g randda ug hter, wa s nine and a half or ten y ear s old, she told him t hat her materna l g randf ather , Montiel, fondled her . Carmen told Gonzalez about t he fondling whil e her mother wa s in the hospital in a coma. Gonzalez was attempting to “pre pare [C arme n] psy cholog ically ” for her mother’s impendingdeath whe n she becam e upset and star ted scre aming and cr

ying a nd said that her g randf

ather had touche d her. G onzalez aske d Carmen whether the touching was innoce nt, i.e ., whether Montiel touc hed her back, and she said no, that he had f ondled her . Carmen told Gonzalez the inc ide nt o c c ur

re d in the a ft e rn oo n, be tw e e n s c ho ol a nd goin g t o th e ho sp ita l. T he de fe ns e objected to Gonzalez as the outc ry witness due to Ca

rmen’s lack of detail to him about the se x ual contac t made by

Montiel. The trial court found C arme n’s s tatement to Gonzalez to be reliable ba sed on time, content, and c ircumstance s, and Gonzalez was desig nated a s the outcry witness. Gonzalez testified similarly

befor e the jury
. Additionally , Carmen testified that Montiel touched her pr ivate par ts, “like my

brea sts and under pa rt, middle part.” She stated the incident oc curr ed in Mo n t i el ’s bedr oom; she had bee n sleeping , and when she awoke, she was not wea ring underw ear

and Montiel’s hand w as in her shirt touching her br easts. She then c alled her uncle, Cesa r M at a, who wa s in the other room; Montiel moved, and Car

men dre ssed and we nt to her fr i en d ’s hous e. Mata testified that upon enter ing Montiel’s bedroom, he sa w Carmen on the bed with a blanket cover ing her from the wa ist up and he r k ne e s b e nt. Mo nti e l w a s v e ry c los e to C arm e n’ s v a ginal area and ha d a lot of sa liv a on his mouth.04
- 09
- 00 34 3- CR

- 3- A portion of a video i nterviewconducte d at the Child Advocac y Center wa s play ed for

the jur y . In th e vid e o, Carm e n to ld a c ouns e lor

that Mo nti e l to uc he d h e r t

hr ou g h h e r c lot

hin g in h is bedroom. She fur

ther stated that he touched he r m iddle part with his hands and that it hurt. Carmen stated this incident occurre d when she was asleep and that she ca lled for he r uncle Cesar when she
rea liz ed what was happening
. She also told the counselor that the incident occ urre d when she was ten y ear s old and her mother was in the hospital. Dr. Gr eg orio Pina, I I I , a lice n s ed chil d psy cholog ist, testified that he eva luated Carme n during three sessions. Carmen told Dr. Pina that Montiel touched he r mid d l e p art while she was sleepingon his bed, and using L incoln L og s for demonstrative purposes, she pointed to her va g ina to indicate wher e she was touched. Dr. Pina a cknowledg ed that Carmen’ s sy mptoms we re c onsistent with child sex ual abuse . Detec tive David B uenrostro of the L are do Police Depa

rtment testified that he intervi ewed Montiel at the police de partment a few months after Car

men’s outcr

y . Montiel initially denied an y wr o n gd o ing a nd then stated that Car

men had touche d him. Monti el’s wr itten state me nt w a s intr od

uc e d into e vid e nc e ; in it, he state s th a t on on e oc c a sio n Ca

rm e n w a s ly

ingin h is bed whe n she g rabbe d his hand and p l ac ed i t o n her pr ivate par t. He also re membere d Carmen kissing him on the mouth one time, and makinghim touch her private par ts three times. D I S CUS S I ON I n his sole issue on appea l, Montiel contends the trial court err ed in allowingJ esus Gonzalez to te stify as the State’s outcry witness. Montiel a rgues Carmen’ s statement to Gonzalez reg arding the incident in question was not deta iled enoug h to qua lify him a s an outcry witness. We reviewa trial court’ s desig nation of an outcry witness under an abuse- of-discr etion standard. See G arcia v. Sta te , 7 92 S.W .2 d 88, 92 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ); Re e d v . S tate , 9 7 4 S. W. 2 d

8 3 8 , 8 4 1 ( T e x.04
- 09
- 00 34 3- CR

- 4- Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 98 , p e t. r e f’ d)
. A tr ia l c ourt ’s de sig natio n of an o utc ry wi tne ss w ill be up he ld when supporte d by

the evidenc e. Ga rc ia , 792 S.W .2d at 92. Under article 38.072 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Procedure , some hea rsay statements ar e admissi b l e i n prosec uting c erta in offense s, including inde cenc y with a child. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a

rt . 3 8. 07 2, § 1 (1 ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 09 ). Spe c if

ic a lly , th e statut e a

pp lie s to “ state me nts that de sc ri be the a lle g e d o ff e ns e ” and that ( 1) we re ma de by

the c hil d a g a inst who m th e of fe ns e alleg edly was c ommitt ed and (2) wer e made to the first person, e ighte en y ear s of ag e or olde r, other than the def

endant, to whom the c hild made a state ment about the off ense. Id
. § 2(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). The Court of Criminal Appe als has construed the statute to apply to the first adult to whom the complainant make s a st atement that in “some discernible m anner descr ibes the alleg ed off

ense.” Se e Ga rc ia , 792 S.W .2d at 91. For the statute to apply , the statement must be more than words that g ive a “ g ener al allusion” that child abuse has occ urre d. Id. “Simply put, the outcry

witness is the f ir s t a d u lt to w h o m th e c h il d te ll s ‘ h o w , w h e n , an d w h e r e ’ o f th e a s sault.” Reyes v . S tate , 274 S.W. 3d 72 4, 72 7 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io 2 00 8, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Ha ns on v . S tate , 180 S.W .3d 726, 730 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 5, no pe t.) ; se e als o S im s v . S tate , 12 S.W .3d 499, 500 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, pet. re f’d)
. We a g re e that Ca

rm en, the vic tim , d id n ot r e lay su ff ic ie nt d e ta ils of

Mo nti e l’ s c on du c t to Gonzalez. Ca rm en did not tell Gonz alez the “how, when, and where ” Montiel touched he r, but instead g ener ally stated that he “fondle d” her
. Rey es , 2 74 S.W. 3d at 72 7; Sm ith v . S

tate , 131 S.W .3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2004, pet. r ef’ d) (c hild’s statement to mother that appe llant had bee n perf orming oral sex on him did not relay any specific details about the c harg ed off ense f or purpose s of de te rm ini ngpr op e r o utc ry wi tne ss) ; Castel an v . S tate , 5 4 S. W. 3 d

4 6 9 , 4 7 5
- 7 6 ( T e x.04
- 09
- 00 34 3- CR

- 5- Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 01 , n o p e t.) (g ra ndmot he r wa s no t pr op e r outc ry wi tne ss be c a us e vic timdid not relay specific details of the a

buse but only

stated appe llant “put hi s thing in throug h the bac k”). Acc ording ly , on this re cord, we conclude the trial court abused its discr etion in de signating Gonzalez as the pro p er o u t cr y

witness beca

use Carme n’s statements to him did not contain sufficient inform at ion about the nature of the a buse to meet the r equire ments of ar ticle 38.072. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a

rt . 3 8. 07 2, § 2 (a ); Ga rc ia , 792 S.W .2d at 91. Havingdeter

mined that the trial cour

t erre d, we must c onduct a ha rm ana ly sis to determine whether this e rror aff ecte d Montiel’s substantial rights. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4. 2( b) . We re vie w this
err or as nonc onstitut ional err or. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 967 S.W .2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Nin o v . S tate , 223 S.W .3d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2007, no pet.). B eca use the
same or sim ila r e vid e nc e wa s a dmi tte d wi th out ob je c tio n at tr ia l, w e ho ld t

he e rr or wa s h arm le ss. Ma y es v . S tate , 816 S.W .2d 79, 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The re cor d ref lects that three other witnesses, as we ll as the victim herself, te stified without objec tion to Mont iel’s touchingof Carme n in mor e specific detail. Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial cour t’s err or in admitting Gonzalez’s testimony about the off

ense ha d a substantial and injurious effec t or influence in determining the jury ’s ver dict. See Nino , 2 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 7 5 4 (c i t i n g Le da

y v . S tate , 9 8 3 S. W. 2 d

7 1 3 , 7 1 7
- 1 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1998) (conc luding that party who objects t o some evidenc e but fails to object to other
su bs tanti a lly sim ila

r e vid e nc e wa ive s any

e rr or in a dmi ssi on

of ob je c te d- to e vid e nc e )) ; W

est v. Sta te , 121 S.W .3d 95, 105 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2003, pet. re f’d) (holding that err or in a dmitti ng outcry testimony did not influence jury ’s ver dict or had but a slight e ffe ct bec ause c omplainant provided de ta ile d te sti mony

re latin g to o ff

e ns e ); Br od

e ric k v . S tate , 3 5 S. W. 3 d 6 7 , 74-75 (Te x. App.—Texarkana

2000, pet. re f’d) (conc luding that a dmission of inadmiss ible hear say , including04
- 09
- 00 34 3- CR

- 6- err oneous desig nation o f o u tcry witness, is nonconstituti onal er ror, a nd it will be considered harmless if appellate court, afte r ex amining the rec ord as a whole, is rea sonably

assure d that err or did no t in fl ue nc e jur

y ve rd ic t or

ha d but a sli g ht e ff

e c t) ; Tho ma s v . S

tate , 1 S. W. 3 d

1 3 8 , 1 4 2 ( T e x. App.—Tex ar k an a 1999, pet. ref’ d) (holdingthat err or in deter mining child complaina

nt’s mother was prope r outcry

witness and thus admitting he r testi m o n y about complainant’ s statements of
se xua l a bu se by de fe nd ant u

nd e r e xce pti on

to h e ars ay

ru le wa s ha

rm le ss, wh e re re c or d w a s r e ple te with testimony

from witnesses other than mother c oncer ning c omplainant’s statements about offe nse). B eca

use we conclude the t rial court’s err or wa s harmless, we overr ule Montiel’s issue on
a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH