The recor d only ref ers to the gra

ndchild as “050603.” For purposes of this appe al, wher e 1 rele vant, we w ill refer

to the g randc hild as the “c omplainant.” 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00038- CR

Wil lia m Edwar d Da vis , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LLANO COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR5502 , HO NORAB LE DONALD LEONARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th e a pp e lla nt, Willi am D avis, wa s a c c us e d o f s e xua lly a bu sin g his se ve n- y e ar o ld g randda ug hter in 2003. At

the tim e , the c omp la ina

nt, he r p are nts , a

nd he r s ibl ing s w e re liv ingin 1 a tra iler behind the a

ppellant’s re sidence . Although the y resided in a

separ ate d we l ling, the complainant and he r si blings spent a gre at deal of time at the a ppellant’s house a

nd often spent the night ther e. The complainant also a lleg ed that her fathe r sexually

abus ed h er , an d h er f

ather was eventua lly

indicted for the alleg ed off ense. H oweve r, the complainant’s fathe r unexpectedly died shortly afte r his indictment. As a re sult of all of the alleg ations, the complainant wa s removed f rom the custody

of her pare nts.2 Duringthe appe llant’s trial, Wil liam Smi th, a license d profe ssional counselor, testified reg arding his the rapy sessions w ith the complainant. In his testimony , Smit h stated that the complainant informe d him that her g randf ather and her fathe r had both sexually abused her. Another counselor, Shar on Be am, also testified re g ardingher the rapy sessions w ith the complainant. B eam stated t hat t he complainant had re lated that her fathe r and he r g randf

ather had both sexually

abused her. In addition, Be am testified that the complainant told B eam that individuals other than the complainant’s f

ather and g randf

ather had abuse d her but that the c omplainant l at er a dmitted that those alleg ations were n’t true.

I n a motion in lim ine, the State asked the court to instruct the a ppellant not to refe r to “[a]ny thing c oncer

ning e vidence of [th e complainant’s] alleg ed sexual conduct . . . until which time as the jury

can be retire d and a he aringheld to deter mine the admissibili ty of such e vidence .” The district cour

t gr anted the motion. Duringthe cour se of the tr ial, the State aske d the district court to prohibit the appellant fr om presenting evidenc e that the c omplainant had also a ccuse d her f ather of sex ual ly abu si nghe r. Ul tim a te ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ru le d th a t th e a

pp e lla nt c ou ld n ot c ro ssexamine the complainant re g ardingalleg ations that she had made about her fathe r.
DI SCU SSIO N On a pp e a l, t he a pp e lla nt a sse rt s that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d by re fu sin g to a llo w h im to cross-e x amine the c omplainant reg ardingher a lleg ations ag ainst her father. Essentially , he ar g ues that the district court’s ruling denied him his constitutional rig ht to confr ont his accuse r. See U. S. Const. am e nd. VI . Moreove r, the a ppellant insists t hat cr oss-examining the witness would have bee n pe rm iss ibl e un de r the ru le s of ev ide nc e . Spe c if ic a lly , he a sse rt s that th e fa c t th a t th e c la ima nt a lso3

made a lleg ations ag ainst her f ather is relevan t to her c redibility and that he should have ther efor e been a llowed to cross-e x amine her reg ardingthose alleg ations. S ee Tex. R. Evi d. 611 (allowing party to cross-e x amine witness “on a ny matter re levant to any issue in the case, including c redibility ”).

The rule s of evidenc e g ener ally prohibit t h e admission of evide nce c oncer ning the victim’s past sexual behavior in a sexual-assault ca se. See id. 412. Howeve r, sometimes the Confrontation Clause of the Sixt h Amendment require s the admission of evidenc e that the r ules of evidenc e would otherwise prohibit. Lop e z v . S tate , 18 S. W.3 d 2 20 , 2 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); see Tex. R. Evi d. 412 (allowing admission of evidenc e of vic tim’s previous sexual conduct if evidenc e “is constitutionally

require d to be admitted”) . The Six th Amendment mandate s that an acc used be g iven an oppor

tunity to confront the w itnesses ag ainst him in a criminal case
. U.S. Const. amend. VI . Pr ima

ri ly , th e ri g ht t o c on fr on tatio n me ans the ri g ht to c ro ss- e xami ne the wi tne sse s o pp os e d to the ac cused, Davis v. Alaska , 4 1 5 U. S
. 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 (1 9 7 4 ), an d th i s ri gh tex t en d s t o th e S t at es th ro u gh the Four teenth Am en d ment, Car oll v . S tate , 916 S.W .2d 494, 497 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Cr os s- e xami natio n ess ent ially se rv e s thre e purp os e s: ( 1) ide nti fy ing“ the wi tne ss w ithhis
com mun ity

so tha t in de pe nd e nt t e sti mony

may be so ug ht a

nd of fe re d c on c e rn ingthe wi tne ss’ reputation for ver acity

in that community ,” (2) allowing “the jury to assess the cr edibility

of the witness,” and ( 3) allowing“fa cts to be broug ht out tending to discre dit the witness by showing that his testimony

in chief w as untrue or biased.” Id. a t 49 7; see a lso Sa gli mb e ni v . S

tate , 10 0 S. W.3 d 4 29 , 4 35 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 02 , p e t. r e f’ d) (e xpla ini ngthat r ight to
c ro ss- e xami na

ti on in clu des ri ght t o i mp each w it nes s w it h rel evan t ev id ence i ll us tr ati ng bia s, int e re st,4

prejudice , inconsistent statements, traits of char acte r af fec ting c redibility , or impairment af fec ting witness’s cr edibility).

Ho w e v e r , w h i l e a

na c c u s e d h a s t h e r i g h tt o c o n f

r o n tan d c r o s s - e xam i n e w i tn e s se s, that rig ht is n o t ab s o l u t e. See Saglimbe ni , 100 S.W .3d at 435. Althoug h the Six th Amendment should be liberally

construed to pr operly

protec t the acc used’s c onstitut ional rig hts, tria l courts have “broa d discretion to impose rea sonable limits on cross-e x amination to avoid hara ssment, prejudice , confusion of t h e i ssues, enda ng eringthe witness, and the injec tion of cumulative or c ollatera l evidenc e.” Lopez , 1 8 S. W.3 d at 22 2; see Saglimbe ni , 100 S.W .3d at 435. Appellate courts re view a trial c ourt’s limit ation of cross-e x amination for an abuse of discretion, and the y

will not int erf

ere with the trial court’ s ruling if it is wit hin the zone of rea sonable d i s agr ee m ent. Le mp ar v . S tate , 191 S.W .3d 230, 236 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. ref ’d). F or Con fr on tatio n- Cla

use p ur po se s, in o rd e r f

or a pr ior a c c us a tio n o f s e xua l a

bu se to be admi t t ed to impeach the c redibility of the c omplainant, “ther e must be a showingthat [t he] evidenc e is probative.” Id. at 239. I n other words, “ther e mus t be evidenc e that the pr ior ac cusations
wer e similar to the ac cusations in the instant cas e, an d t h er e mus t be evidenc e that the pr ior
acc usations were false.” Id. ; se e Hu gh es v . S tate , 8 50 S.W. 2d

26 0, 26 2- 63 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 19 93, p e t. r e f’ d) (s tatin g tha t w he n “ the re is n o e vid e nc e tha t th e c omp la ina

nt m a de fa lse
acc usations, any

evidenc e conc erningthe ac cusations is inadmissibl e.”)
. Submit ting pr oof that the previous ac cusations wer e fa lse is nece ssary to act u al l y

attack the cre dibilit y

of the c laimant and “esta blish a motive for the complainant to lie” in the pre sent ca se. See H ughes , 850 S.W .2d at 263. Moreove r, re quiring this ty pe of e vidence bef

o r e a ll o w in g

c r o s s - e xamination limit s the risk of fur ther5

victimiz ing a

complainant by

urg ing that the complainant lies about sex ual assault. Lempar , 191 S.W .3d at 239. Not re quiring this ty pe o f p roof before allowing defe ndants to question
c omp la ina

nts re g ard ingpr e vio us a c c us a tio ns wo uld un du ly pr e jud ic e the State ’s c a se and c on fu se the jury with information not releva nt to the deter

mination of whether the defenda nt was guilty

of the cr ime alleg ed. See id. ; see also T ex . R
. E v id. 403 (allowing even r eleva nt evidence to be excluded in order to pr event, a mong othe r thing s, confusion of issues). Duringhis trial, the appellant pr esente d no evide n ce that the complainant’s
a lle g a t i o n s a g a i n s t h e r f

a t h e r w e r e f

a l s e o r th a t s h e h a d r e c an t e d h e r a c c u s a t i o n s . W i th ou t so me evidenc e demonstrating that the alleg ations might be false, te stimony conce rning the complainant’ s alleg ations ag ainst her f

ather would have be en irre levant to the fina l determination of the a ppellant’s g uilt. I n other words, evidenc e demonstrating that the complainant had made alleg ations ag ainst her fathe r, without more, would not have been r eleva nt to a deter mination of whether

the complainant fabr icated he r alleg ations ag ainst the appe llant and, co rr espondi ng ly , whether the appe llant was g uilty of the off

ense c harg ed. Ac cording ly , the appe llant failed to demonstrate that cr oss-examining the complainant r eg arding her alleg ations ag ainst her fathe r was c onstitut ionally require d, and the district court’s de cision to lim it the cross-e x amination of the c laimant did not violate the appellant’ s constitutional right to conf ro n t t h e wi t nesses a g ainst him. See U. S. Co ns t. a me nd . V I . F or

the se
same re a so ns , th e a

pp e lla nt a lso fa ile d to de mon str a te tha t th e e vid e nc e wo uld have be e n a dmi ssi ble under the rules of e vidence
. See Te x . R. Ev id . 4 01 (s tatin g that e vid e nc e is r e le va nt i f i t te nd s to make e x istence of fac t “more probable or l ess probable than it would be without the evidenc e”) , 402 (explaining that e vidence that “is not releva nt is inadmiss ible”). In light of the appellant’ s failure6

to produce any evidenc e indicating that the complainant’ s prior alleg ations ag ainst her f ather wer e false, w e c an n o t c o n c lu d e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o urt a

b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o nb y

p r e v e n ti n g th e a

p p e ll ant from cr oss-examining the c omplainant reg arding t hose alleg ations. Se e Lap e v . S tate , 893 S.W .2d 949, 955-56 (Te x . App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1994, pet. re f’d) (upholding exclusion of evidence of previous accusations when no evidenc e was introduced to show that a lleg ations were false: c omplainant never

admitted alleg ations ag ainst other men wer e false, a nd no other witnesse s testified that allega t i o n s we re false) . Moreove r, we note that the complaina nt’s cre dibilit y

had alre ady been impea ched thr oug h the testimony of one of the State’s witnesses indicating th at t he complainant had ma de fa lse alleg ations ag ainst other individuals while in therapy
.

For all the re asons pre viously g iven, we ove rrule the appellant’ s sole issue on appea l
and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 9, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh