T he gi r l and her t wel v e- y ear - ol d br ot her had been l ef t al one t her e whi l e t hei r f at her t ook hi s gi r l f r i end 1 to a m e e ti n g . NO. 07-07 -012 0-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D FEB RU ARY14, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RO YLEO NA RD M ATHR E, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; TH NO. 531 08-E; HON. ABE LOP EZ, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. The appea l before u s i nv olv es the o ff ense of indec ency w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. Appel lan t R oy

Leonard M athre c ontes ts his conv ic ti on by cl aimi ng thatthe tr ial co urt er re d in admit ti ng hearsay

tes ti mony . W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Back gr ound Appel lan t w as acc used of ex posi ng hi s g eni tal s to a ten- y ear-o ld g ir l in a l aundromat in Amar il lo. Sh e repor ted t he inc ide nt to her

ol der brother w ho w as w it h her

. In t ur n, he 12

tol d tw o oth er

persons w ho w er e als o the re . One o f those persons i mmediat ely ca ll ed th e pol ic e. The tes ti mony of the tw o persons w hom the v ic ti m’s brother co n tacted w as tende r ed a s o ut c r

y , an d th e tr i al c ou rt al l ow ed t he m t o te s ti fyo n th atb as i s . H owev er, Of f icer W a lt e r M cGallian a nd th e com plaina nt’s fath er Jimm y Patte rson w ere also per m itted t o tes ti fy to w hat t he c omplai nant tol d the m about the i nci dent. Ap pel lan t cont end s this w as error. Standa rd

of Rev iew a nd App licat

ion W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t ev ide nce under the sta ndard of abuse d dis creti on. W

eather re d v . St ate, 15 S. W .3d 540 , 542 (Tex. Crim. App

. 200 0). S o too must
w e uphol d the dec is ion i f it is su ppor ted b y any appl ic abl e the o ry o f

l a w. McDonald

v. State, 148 S.W .3d 598, 603 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 2004) , aff’ d, 179 S. W .3d 5 71 th (Tex . Crim . Ap p. 20 05) ; Car ter v. Sta te, 145 S. W .3d 7 02, 7 07, ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2004, pet. re f’d)

. W hen M cGa ll ian , t he i nit ial respon din g pol ic e off ic er , at tempted to t est ify to w hat t he compl ain ant t old hi m had ha ppened, appel lan t obj ect ed on the g ro und of he a rsay . The
cou rt o verruled th e obj ect ion

. The basi s o f the c our t’ s r uli ng w as not d is cl osed in the record; h owev er, just prior to the subjecttestim ony, the of f icer sa id tha t bot h children w ere
v ery upse t and the com plaina nt w as cry ing. Moreover, tha t dem ean or is of impo rt becau se sta tements r ela ti ng to sta rt li ng ev ents or condi ti ons made w hil e the dec larant w as under the s tr ess of ex ci tement caus ed bythe ev ent or condi ti on i s a n ex cept ion to the h earsay ru le. T EX
. R. E V ID
. 803( 2)

.3

So, the q uest ion to be det er mined her e is w hether the decl ar ant w as sti ll domi nated by the emoti ons, ex ci tement, fear or pai n of the ev ent w hen s peaki ng w it h the off ic er . Ki ng
v. State, 953 S.W .2d 266 , 269 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97). And , base d up on th e o f f icer’s desc ri pti on of the compl ain ant’ s c ondi ti on atthe tim e h e i nter v iew ed her

as w ell as her y oung age, w e cannot say the tr ial court ’s decis ion to admitthe tes ti mony fell outs ide the
z one of reason abl e di sag re ement an d c onst it uted an abus e of di sc re tion. See Davis v. State, 169 S.W .3d 6 60, 6 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2005) , aff’ d, 20 3 S. W .3 d 84 5 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2006) (hol din g that a sta tement made to an of ficer short ly after the ev ent w hen t he compl ain ant w as sobbi ng and appeared hy ste ri cal w as an ex ci ted u tterance)

. Nex t, app e l l a n t c o mp l a i n s o f t h e a d mi s s i o n o f t h e s a me e v i d e n c e t o l d b y the compl ain ant to the chi ldren’ s father Ji mmy Patt erson w hen he ar ri v ed at the laundromat after th e i n cid e nt. Ag ain , app ell ant o bje cte d on the b asi s o f hears ay . In respon se, the Stat e s oug ht ad mis si on of the ev ide nce under the ex ci ted u tterance ex cept ion

. Acc ordin g to P atterson, his daug hter shook , her v oic e tr embled , her face w as re d, s he had an al tered brea thing pat tern, she w as cry ing, and she app eare d generally traum atized w hen he spo ke
w it h her

. W hile a bit of

time e lapsing bet w een a st artling event and t he h earsa y state me nt is a factor to be consi der ed w hen asses si ng w hether the sta tement w as an ex ci ted u tterance, Bufk in v. State, 179 S. W .3 d 1 6 6, 17 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 2005) , aff’ d, 207 th S.W .3d 7 79 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) , i t i s n ot di spos it iv e. See Ap o lin a r v. Sta te, 155 S.W .3d 1 84, 1 90- 91 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) (f in d in g that, u nder the ci rc umstan ces , t he ela pse of four

day s did not pr ev ent the sta tement from bei ng an e x ci ted u tterance) ; W hite4

v. State, 201 S. W .3d 2 33, 2 46 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 06, p et. re f’d) ( findi ng thata sta tement made by

the v ictim i n a se cond int er v iew after the defendant had been int er v iew ed bypoli ce, the compl ain ant had put on more c lot hes, and another off ic er had
ar ri v ed w as an ex ci ted u tterance w hen the v ic ti m w as sti ll v is ibl y sh aken)

. And g iv en th e emoti onal st ate o f the v ic ti m as desc ri bed by her father w hen he spok e w it h her , w e c annot say thata de ci si on to co nsi der the utterance an ex ci ted o ne fell o u ts id e the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement an d c onst it uted an abus e of di sc re ti on. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s i ss ue i s o v er ru led and the j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Do not p ubl is h.