### NUM BER 13-06- 0013 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
EST EBA N GUT IERR EZ , JR ., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 13 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y found appel lan t, Est eban G uit e rre z, Jr ., g uil ty of ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d by cont actand ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE
. A NN
. § 21. 11(a )(1), (2 ) (V er non 200 3)

. T h e j u ry a ssess ed puni shmentat tw o y ears’ co nfinement and a fine of $1 0,000. Appel lan t’ s pr is on sent ence w as probated for te n y ears. On appeal , app ell ant cont end s that he is entitle d to a new trial beca use: (1) the Sta te fa iled to disclose allegedly2

ex cul pator

y ev ide nce, and (2 ) the S tate pr esent ed fals e tes ti mony
. W e aff ir m. I. B A CKGRO UND In 2003, si xteen- y ear-o ld S.B. w or ked as a li feguard for the ci ty of McAll en. Appel lan t was S.B ’s i nst ru cto r and s uper v is or
. At t ri al, S.B . recoun ted v ar iou s i nci dents of abuse, i ncl udi ng an i nci dent w her e appel lan t reache d i nto S .B.’ s “ crotc h area” and a sec ond i nci dent w her e appel lan t k is sed S.B. and “reache d for [her ] breastov er

[her ] s hir t.” Mo st re lev ant h er e, ho w ev er , i s a n i nci dent that occ ur re d on Dec ember 30, 2003, w her e, accord ing to S.B., a ppe llant sexually assau lted h er in the po ol “pum p ho use. ” S.B . t est ified sh e w or ked the 6 :00 t o 9:0 0 p.m. sh ift, and th a t the onl y othe r employ ee w h o w as w or ki ng thatni g ht w as shi ft manag er M arg ar it a R ey es. S. B. fur ther tes ti fied th at w hen app ell ant a rr iv e d at approx imat ely 8:30 p.m., he a sk ed her to
acc omp a n y h i m t o t h e p u mp h o u s e s o t h a t h e c o u l d s h o w h e r h o w t o ma n a g e the pool chl or ine l evels

. She ag re ed. Acc or din g to S.B. , after they w alk ed i nto t he pump house , appel lan t c los ed th e door behi nd th em, tur ned off the li g hts , pul led her tow ar ds him, and tr ied to ki ss her. Althoug h she pull ed aw ay , he g ra bbed he r by the shoul der

and pushe d her dow n ov er

a s tool , faci ng dow n. He then re mov ed her shor ts and un der

w ear , t ook out his peni s, and puti t i n her v ag ina

. Appel lan t w as ind ic ted o n one countof sex ual as saul t, one countof ind ecenc y w it h
a c h i l d b y c o n t a c t , a n d o n e c o u n t o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d b y ex posur e. Se e Id . §§ 22.011, 2 1

. 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 )

. A l l t h r e e c o u n t s w e r e a l l e g e d t o h a v e o c c u r r e d “ o n o r about Dec ember

30, 2003.” A jur

y r etur ned g uil ty

v er dic ts f o r th e i n d e cenc y w it h a c hil d by cont actand in decen cy w it h a c hil d by

ex posure c ounts , butac q uit ted a ppel lan t of the
sex ual assaul t count. Appel lan t f il ed a moti on for newtr ial , w hic h w as deni ed. This appealW e a d d re s s a p p e l l a n t’ s i s s u e s o u t o f o rd e r fo r p u rp o s e s o f o rg a n i za ti o n
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 1 ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he co ur t ofa pp ea l s m us t hand do wn a wr i t t en o pi ni on t hat i s br i efas pr act i cabl e bu t t hat a d d re s s e s e v e ry i s s u e ra i s e d a n d n e c e s s a ry t o fi n a l d i s p o s i ti o n o f th e a p p e a l ).

T he r ecor d shows t hat t he t i m e sheet s wer e i nt r oduced i nt o ev i dence bot h at t r i al and at t he h ear i ng 2 o n a p p e l l a n t’ s m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l

. 3 follo w ed. II. D I S CUS S I ON A . St and ard o f Rev iew Al l of the is sues rai sed in thi s appeal w er e asser ted byappell ant i n hi s mot ion for
new tr ial

. W e r ev iew

a t ria l co urt’ s d eni al of a moti on for new tr ial under

an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Holden v

. State , 201 S.W .3d 7 61, 7 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. A tr ial
cour t abuses its dis creti on i n deny ing a mot ion for n ew tr ial onl y w hen no re asona ble v iew of the record c oul d s uppor t t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng
. Id

. B . F a l s e T e s t i m o n y As his se cond is sue, appel lan t arg ues that the S tate v iol ated his rig ht t o due 1 proce ss by

p resen ting f alse te stimo ny at trial. Spe cif ically , app ellant comp lains tha t S.B. ’s tes ti mony

that Rey es w as the only other employ ee w ho w or ked Dec ember 30 w as false, and the St ate ’s fa ilure t o correct the f alse te stimo ny led to an un fair trial. In sup port of his cl aim, appel lan t, at t he hear ing on h is motio n f or new tr ial , i ntroduce d ti me she ets as ev ide nce that Rey es w or ked on D ecember 29 rather

than D ecember

30. 2 1. A pp licab le L aw A prose cuto r’s know ing use of perjured testim ony v iolate s the Due Proce ss Clause of the F our

teent h Amendmentto the Uni ted Stat es Con sti tuti on. Moon ey v
. Hol ohan , 294 U. S. 1 03, 1 12 (1935)

. Lik ew is e, a prosec utor ’s kn ow ing fail ur e to cor re ct suc h tes ti mony4

deni es a defendant due proces s. Nap ue v
. Illinois , 360 U. S. 264, 269 (1 959)

. It does not matter w hether the prosec utor

actual ly know s that the ev ide nce is f als e; i t i s e noug h i f the prosec utor

sho u ld hav e r ecog niz ed th e mi sl eadi ng natu re of the e v ide nce. Duggan v
. State , 778 S.W .2d 465, 468- 69 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1989) ; R a m i r e z v . State , 96 S.W .3d 3 86, 395- 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, pet. r ef’d)

. Nor i s i t s ig nif ic ant t hat t he fals ehood g oes merel y to an i ss ue of credi bil it y . Nap ue , 360 U .S. at 26 9. The ju ry ’s es ti mate of the tr uthfulnes s a nd reli abi li ty of a g iv en w it ness m a y w ell be d eter minat iv e of g uil t or inno cence , and it is upo n such subtle fa ctors as the credibility of w itness th at a de fend ant ’s li fe or li ber

ty may depend

. Id

. From the re cord, w e m u st d e te rmi ne: ( 1) i f the St ate “ used” the tes ti mony ; ( 2)
w hether the tes ti mony

w as “fal se” ; ( 3) w hether the tes ti mony

w as “k now ing ly

use d” ; and (4) if the State ’s q uest ions are a f f irmatively

ans we re d , w het her the re is a reaso nab le li kel iho od th at t he fals e tes ti mony co uld hav e aff ect ed th e j u ry ’s j udg ment. Ram ir ez , 96 S.W .3d a t 394 -9 5. The Stat e contends , and w e ag re e, t hat a ppel lan t has fail ed to sh ow that the Stat e “k now ing ly used” the tes ti mony and t hat t he te sti mony co uld hav e aff ect ed the j ur y ’s j udg ment. 2. A nal ysis Att he mo ti on for

n ew t r i al h ea r i ng , th e St at e pros ec ut or tes ti fi ed tha t he f i rs t c am e across Reyes’s name w hile revi ewi ng v arious po lice reports w ithin th e case f il e . He ack now led g ed that one parti cul ar repor t show ed th at S .B. had ment ion ed th at R ey es w as the o nly othe r employ ee atthe pool the nig ht of the i nci dent. He further tes ti fied that w hen he c ontac ted R ey es tw o w eeks pri or to tr ial , she denied re cal li ng w hether sh e w or ked the nig ht of the D ecember

30 o r w hether

she ev er

saw S.B. accompan y

appel lan t t o the pool5

pum p ho use. Appe llant’s trial coun sel testif ied th at he had f ull a ccess to the State ’s file in t h is m a t t e r, a n d h e a c k n o wle d ge d t h a tn o t h in g i n t h e f il e ga ve h im a n y re a s o n t o b e li e ve that Rey es w or ked Dec ember 29 rather

than D ecember

30. It is apparent from the re cord tha t app ell ant c ame i nto p oss ess ion of the t ime sheet s before t he St ate d id. O n appea l, the Stat e ac know led g es that “the pros ecut ion had not thoug ht t o obt ain the Ci ty ’s empl oy ee r ecords, and w as unaw ar e, un ti l itw as broug ht ou t b y t h e d e fe n s e a tt ri a l, t h a tR e ye s h a d n o te ve n wo rk e d o n De c e m b e r 3 0

. . . . ” A p p a re n t ly, app ellant f irst realized tha t S.B. ’s testimo ny ma y have been incorrect w hen Linda Hughes, appel lan t’ s s ole defense w it ness , tes ti fied that the ti me sheet s, int ro duced as ev ide nce by app ellant ’s trial coun sel, sho w ed that Reyes had not worked on Dece mb er 30. Noth ing i n the record, ho w ev er , s how s th at t he St ate w as aw ar e of thi s factw hen S. B. t ook the
w it ness st and. R ev iew ing the re cord i n i ts enti re ty , w e find no ev ide nce that w hen the Stat e el ic it ed S. B.’ s t est imony i t w as aw ar e tha t S.B.’ s cl aim that Rey es w or ked Dec ember 30 may hav e been false. Mo re i mport antl y , app ell ant does not e x pla in how any i ncons is tenc y

menti oned by S. B. c ou l d ha v e affec te d th e c ou rs e or o ut c om e of t he t r i al

. A pp el l an t i nt r od uc ed t he t i me shee ts into evidence at trial a nd the ju ry h eard Hughes’s testim ony that Reyes did not w ork on D ecember

30. It is enti re ly poss ibl e, ther efore, that in re achi ng it s v er dic t t he j ur y w as aware of th e fac t th at S. B’ s te s ti mo ny ma y ha v e be en i nc or r ec t. Ap pe l l an t ha s simply faile d to show

that the State know ing ly elic it ed fals e tes ti mony or thatthe false tes ti mony coul d hav e aff ect ed th e ul ti mate j udg ment of the jur y . See R am ir

ez , 96 S.W .3d a t 394 -9 5. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue.6 C. Ex cul pat or

y Ev id ence By hi s first is sue, appel lan t arg ues that the S tate attor ney ’s fail u re to dis cl ose the fact th at he had cont act ed R ey es pr ior to t ri al and t hat s he had prov ide d hi m w it h
ex cul pator

y infor mati on deni ed him due proces s of l aw
. Att ached to appel lan t’ s mot ion for
new tr ial i s R ey es’ s a ff ida v it , w her ein she sw ears t hat s he r ecei v ed tw o phone ca ll s from the D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s off ic e, and that s he i nformed t he prosec utor thatal thoug h s he had
no reco llection o f

Decem ber 30 , 200 3, she “never saw [app ellant ] go to the pu mp hou se
w hen [S.B. ] w as w orking, a nd tha t [S.B .] w as alw ays on d eck w ith [he r] when the re w ere swim m e rs in t h e p o o l. ” Cit in g Brady v

. Ma ry lan d , 37 3 U .S

. 83 , 87 ( 19 63 ) , ap pe l l an t c l ai ms tha t this informa tion is exculpato ry and could ha v e be en u sed for im pea chm ent purpo ses. In Br ady , the Uni ted Stat es Supr eme Cou rt conc lud ed th at t he s uppr ess ion by the prose cution of

ev iden ce favorable to a def end ant v iolate d du e proce ss if th e evidence is mater ial ei ther

to g uilt or

puni shment , w it hout re g ar d to the g ood or bad faith o f the prosec uti on. See id .; Ha rm v
. State , 183 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 05 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; W yatt
v . State , 23 S.W .3d 1 8, 27 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 0). T o f ind rev ersible error und er Br ady , a defendant must show that : (1 ) the S tate f a ile d to dis cl ose ev ide nce, r eg ar dle ss of the prosec uti on’ s g ood or

bad faith; (2 ) the w it hhel d ev ide nce is fav or abl e to him; and (3 ) the
ev ide nce is mater ial , t hat i s, there i s a r eason abl e probabi li ty that had t he ev ide nce been dis cl osed, the outc ome of the t ri al w oul d hav e been different. Ham pton v . State , 86 S.W .3d 6 03, 6 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ; see Harm , 183 S.W .3d a t 405

. 1. Suppres sion Th e fi rs te l e me n to f Br

ady is prese nt i f the prose cution actively supp resses evidence
or neg li g entl y

fail s t o di sc los e i t. J u a r e z v . State , 439 S.W .2d 346, 348 (Tex . Cr im. App.7

1969) ; Sm it

h v

. State , 840 S.W .2d 6 89, 6 93 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 92, p et. re f’d) ; Tay lor
v . State , 93 S.W .3d 487, 498-9 9 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2002, pet. ref’d)

. W hil e the Stat e has an affirmat iv e dut y to dis cl ose, i t i s “ not req uired to faci li ta te t h e c ompil ati on of exculpato ry

mat erial that could ha v e be en co mp iled by the def ense .” Tay lor , 93 S.W .3d
a t 4 9 9

. Thus, w it hout suppress ion , t her e i s n o Br ady v iol ati on. Id .; s e e a l

s o S ta ten v

. State , 919 S.W .2d 4 93, 4 98 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W o rt h 1996, pet. ref’d) ( ex pla ini ng thatno Brady v iol ati on ex is ts unl ess it is show n that the def endant w as act ual ly deni ed ac ces s t o the a ll eg edl y

fav or abl e mater ial ). At the hea ri ng on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial , app ell ant’ s c ounse l conc eded t hat t h e S t a t e m a in t a in e d a n o p e n f il e p o li c y wit h h im t h ro u g h o u tt h e p ro c e e d in gs b e lo w. Generall y , i f the St ate o pens it s f il e f or ex aminat ion bydefense coun sel , it fulfill s i ts duty to di sc los e Brady ev ide nce. Brewer v
. State , 126 S.W .3d 295, 305 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 2004, pet. re f’d)

. Mo re ov er , t her e i s n o ev ide nce the S tate suppress ed th e al leg ed Brady mater ial at is sue. Atthe new

tr ial hear ing , app ell ant’ s c ounse l tes ti fied th at he had acc ess to the pol ic e r epor

t w her ein S.B . ment ion ed th at R ey es w as the o nly othe r employ ee w ho w or ked the n ig ht t he al leg ed i nci dent o cc u rre d. Indeed, appel lan t’ s c ounse l menti oned t hat h e attempt ed to co ntac t R ey es but w as unsuc ces sful. The State is not re q uired to seek ou t
ev ide nce for th e defendant’ s u se. See T ayl or , 93 S.W .3d at 499. W hile th e S t a t e is
re q uired to produce ex cul pator y and impeac hment ev ide nce, the g ov er nment is not
re q uired to faci li tate the c ompil ati on of ex cul pator y mater ial thatco uld hav e been compi led by the defense. Id . A p p e ll a n t was w ell aw are tha t Rey es w as me ntion ed in th e po lice
re por t and thus co uld hav e r eason abl y ex pect ed her

to prov ide ei the r ex cul pator y or8

inc ulp ator

y i nformati on. W e w oul d be hard press e d t o c onst ru e appel lan t’ s a ppar ent inab ility to cont act Reyes as ev iden ce tha t the State inten tiona lly o r negligently

w ithhe ld
ev ide nce. See T

ayl or , 93 S.W .3d a t 499 ; Staten , 919 S.W .2d a t 498

.

2 . M a t e r i a l i t y As su m in g ar

guendo that the Stat e did unl awfully su ppr ess the ev ide nce, appel lan t sti ll c a r r i e s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s ma t e r i a l , i

. e
. , t h a t i t c r e a t ed a probabi li ty

su ff icie n t to u nder mine confide nce in the o utc ome of the p ro ceedi ng s. See Thom as v . State , 8 4 1 S. W .2d 3 99, 4 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992)

. “E v ide nce is mater ial under the thi rd Brady factor

w her e there is a ‘reason abl e probabi li ty ’ that the o utc ome of the t ri al w oul d hav e been different if the suppress ed ev ide nce had bee n di sc los ed to the def end ant .” Tay

lor , S. W .3d 9 3 at 501. At t he hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial , app ell ant’ s t ri al couns el
ac k no w l ed g ed t ha t i n hi s ope ni ng st at em en t t ha t he pl ac ed app el l an t an d S. B. i n th e pu mp hou se togeth er but a rg ued to the jury that it w as S.B w ho m ade the initial ad v ance . He f urthe r acknowledged tha t beca use the in ciden t occurred in the pu mp hou se, th ere w ere no wi tne sses to th e act itself . Th us, as th e Sta te prop erly point s ou t , t h e f a c t t h a t the re
w er e no w it n e ss e s t o the i nci dent, and becau se appel lan t t ri al couns el adv anced the defensi v e the or

y thati t had been S.B. w ho made the i nit ial adva nce in the p ump hous e, Rey es’ s g ener al sta tement that she “n ev er sa w [app ell ant] go to t h e pump house w hen [S.B .] w as w or ki ng ” w oul d hav e v er y l it tl e, i f any , effect on the o utcome of the t ri al. See Ham pton , 86 S.W .3d a t 612 (hol din g that“ the mere pos si bil it y thatan i tem of undi sc los ed informa tion m ight have helped the de fense , or m ight h ave a f fecte d the o utco me o f

t he trial, d o e s n o t e st a b lis h ‘m a te ria lit y’ in t h e co n st it u ti o n a l se n se ”) (qu o ti n g United State s v
. Agu rs ,9

427 U .S. 97, 1 09 ( 1976) ). W e c onclude that Rey es’ s s tatementw as not mat er ial bas ed on th e r ecord of thi s cas e. Appel lan t has not show n a re asona ble probabi li ty that had t he sta tements been dis cl osed ear li er , the outc ome of t he tr ial w oul d hav e been different. Se e id . at612 n.26; W

il son , 7 S.W .3d a t 146

. Appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

____________________ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 19t h day

of June, 2008.