### NUM BER 13-06- 364- 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
ROB ERT B ERMEA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 29t h Dist rict C ou rt o f W ha rton C ou nt y , T exas .



# MEMORAND UM OPI NI 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 Ju stice B en av ide s After a j ur

y tr ial , app ell ant, Rob ert Be rmea, w as conv ic te d o f o n e c ount of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and tw o c ounts of ind ecenc y w it h a c hil d. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN § 21.11( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 3) ( ind ecenc y ), § 22 .021 (B ) (V er non Su pp. 200 8) (agg rav ate d sexual assau lt). The jury asses s e d p u n ish me nt at eighty y ears’As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on a nd t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s, we wi l l not r eci t e t he 1 fa c ts h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt’ s d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 confine ment for the a g g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of fense and tw enty

y ear s’ co nfinement for each countof ind ecenc y w it h a c hil d, t o r un conc ur re ntl y . On appeal , Ber mea ass erts that th e tr i al c ou rt er r ed i n ad mi tt i ng t he t es ti mo ny o f t he o ut c r

y w i tn es s
. W e affi r m. 1 I. D I S CUS S I ON Ber mea co ntends thatthe tr ial courtcommitte d rev er si ble err or w hen it all ow ed th e outc ry w it ness, Va le rie Br ock , t o tes ti fy. Sp eci fical ly , Be rmea all eg es that the t hr ee com plaina nts m a d e ou tcries to oth er qualifie d pe rsons be f ore m aking outcries to Brock. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.072 (V er non 200 5) ( pr ov idi ng thatthe pr oper out cry w itness is the f irst person, ov er eighteen y ears of age , t o wh om the child-victim made a s tatementab out t he offense). Be rmea cl aims that the pr oper

outc ry w it ness for tw o compl ain ants , M. M. and K.S. , w as thei r mother and that the p ro per outc ry w it ness es f or K.K., the th ird comp lainan t, w ere a Children ’s P ro tective Serv ices w orker, a Court Appoi nted Speci al Adv ocat es v olu nteer , and the chi ld’ s mot her

. The Stat e r espon ds that Brock w as the f irst person, ov er the a ge of eighteen , to w hom the childre n ma de o utcries. Even if th e ad mission of Brock’s testim o n y wa s error, w e con clude that the error is harm less. A. S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w An error in the adm ission or exclusion of evidence is subje ct to the harm ana ly sis setf orth in rul e 44.2(b ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re
. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44 .2(b); Dor ado v . St ate , 843 S.W .2d 3 7, 38 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1 992) ; Ma tz v. Sta te , 21 S.W .3d 9 9 1 , 9 1 2 (T e x. Ap p .– Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 0 0 , pe t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Johns on v . St ate , 967 S.W .2d 4 10,A r tic le 3 8 .0 7 2 o fth e c o d e o fc r im in a l p r o c e d u r e r e q u ir e s th a t t h e c o m p la in a n ts b e a v a ila b le to te s tif y; 2 t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat one com pl ai nant di d t est i f y and t hat t he ot her t wo com pl ai nant s wer e av ai l abl e bu t w e re n o t c a l l e d b y e i th e r s i d e
. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt. 3 8 .0 7 2 , § 2 (b )( 3 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); see Mar t inez v . S ta te , 1 78 S

. W

. 3d 80 6, 81 1 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 05 ); see gener al l y C r aw f ord v. W ashi

ngt on , 541 U

. S. 36 (20 04 ). O n a p p e a l, B e r m e a d o e s n o t c o n te s t t h e v o lu n ta r in e s s o fth is s ta te m e n t. T h e r e f o r e , t h e is s u e is

3 n o t b e fo re u s
. S e e S w e a rin g e n v . S ta te , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d 8 9 , 1 0 0 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); see a l so G onz al ez v. C r uz , N o . 1 3 -0 7 -3 5 1 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 5 2 8 5 , a t *5 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , n o . p e t. h. ) ( m em
. op. ) ( ci t i ng Bankhead v. Maddox , 13 5 S

. W

. 3d 16 2, 16 3-6 4 (T ex
. A pp
. –T y l er 20 04 , no pe t

. ))

. 3 417 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ). R ule 44.2 (b ) man d a te s th a t w e di sr eg ar d anynoncons ti tuti onal er ro r unl ess it af fects Ber mea’s substa nti al ri g hts

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44 .2(b);
see Johns on , 967 S.W .2d at 417 (d is c u s s in g the erroneo us ad mission of inadm issible hea rsayas non -constitu tiona l error)

. A substan tial rig ht is af f ecte d w hen t he e rror has a 2 subs tanti al and i nju ri ous eff ect or influ ence in deter mini ng the jur y ’s v er dic t. Ki

ng v . St ate , 9 5 3 S. W .2 d 26 6 , 2 7 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Kotteakos v. United S tates , 328 U .S. 750 , 776 (1946 )). If

othe r properly adm itted ev iden ce proves the sam e f acts, the error is har mles s. See B ro oks v. Sta te , 990 S.W .2d 2 78, 2 87 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ; Ma tz , 21 S.W .3d at 912. Addi ti onal ly , “w e shoul d not re v er se a conv ic ti on for th e err o neous admis si on of ev ide nce if the a p p e lla te co urt, after ex amini ng the re cor d as a w hol e, ha s f air assuran ce tha t the error did not inf luen ce the jury , or had but a slight ef f ect.” Cobb v. State , 85 S. W .3 d 2 5 8 , 27 2 (T e x. Crim . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g Johns on , 967 S.W .2d at 417 ). B. A nal y sis Dur ing the Stat e’s ca se- in- chi ef, Ber me a ’ s s w o r n , v olu ntar y st atement w as admit ted int o ev ide nce and publi shed to the jur y w it hout obje cti on. In thatst atement, Ber mea sa id: 3 I di d w r on g a nd I k no w

i t. I d i d do t he t hi ng s t ha t th e k i ds s ai d ab ou t me

. . . .T he r ecor d i ncl udes sev er al di f f er ent l ast nam es f or t he v i ct i m s. T he i ni t i al s of t he v i ct i m s’ nam es 4 a re b a s e d o n th e n a m e s u s e d i n th e i n d i c tm e n t.

I n ad di t i on t o Ber m ea’ s swor n st at em ent , ot her ev i dence adm i t t ed at t r i al t endi ng t o pr ov e t he sa m e 5 f act s i ncl udes: Ber m ea’ s t est i m ony t hat he k i ssed K. S. on her pr i v at e pa r t ; Ber m ea’ s v i deot aped st at em ent cont ai ni ng m uch t he sam e m at er i al as hi s w r i t t en st at em ent ; and M

. M

. ’ s t est i m ony t hat Ber m ea ki ssed h er o n h e r “b o tto m p a rts .”
4 I re m e m b e r t h a t I k is s e d [ K

. S

. ] o n h e r p ri va t e p a rt a n d I p u t m y h a n d s d o wn 4 the panti es o f [ M

. M

. ]

. I p r o b a b l y t o u c h e d t h e g i r l s [ K

. S

. a n d M

. M

. ] t w o or thr ee di ff er ent t imes

. . . . Before thi s h appened w it h [K .S.] and [M .M .] [si c] I al so mess ed w it h [K .K.]

. . . . I r ubbed my

fing er s o n her

[and ] putmy

fing er s i n her

a l it tl e w ay

. . . . I mes sed w it h [K .K.] l ik e may be fiv e ti mes

. . . . I am w il li ng to suffer the co nseq uence s fr om thi s.
. . . Ev en i f Broc k w as not t h e p ro p er outc ry w it ness , Be rmea’ s s tatementpr ov es the
s a m e f a c t s p ro vid e d in B ro c k ’ s t e s t im o n y. See Brooks , 990 S.W .2d a t 287 ; Ma tz , 21 5 S.W .3d a t 912

. Ber mea’s sw or n s tatement , w hic h w as admit ted w it hout obje cti on, g iv es us a fair as sur ance that the e rr or , i f a n y, d id n o t influenc e the j ur y or onl y had a s li g ht eff ect

. See C obb , 85 S.W .3d a t 272 ; Janni se v. State , 7 8 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 6 (T e x. App.–B eaumont 1990, pet. r ef’d) (hol din g that anyerr or i n admi tti ng outc ry

tes ti mony

w as re nder ed har mles s b ecaus e defendant’ s s tatementadmi tted dur ing tr ial co nfessed to t he major it y of the a cts al leg ed) ; see als o Luer a v . St ate , N o
. 0 7
- 9 8
- 0 1 1 8
- C R , 1 9 9 8 WL 918883, at *2 ( Tex

. App.–A mari ll o 1998, pet. re f’d) (n ot desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( ci ti ng5

Dor ado , 843 S.W .2d at 38) ; cf. Ma ll or y v . St ate , 752 S.W .2d 566, 570- 571 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1988) ( conc lud ing that admit ti ng the compl ain ant’ s v ide otaped tes ti mony in v iol ati on of the Con fr o n t a t i o n C l a u s e w a s h a r mf u l e r r o r w h e r e t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s s w o r n , w r i t t e n s t a t ement de ni ed th e c ha r g e ag ai ns t hi m)

. W e th er efo r e ho l d th at ev en i f th e tr i al c ou rt erred in adm itt in g B rock’s outcry testim ony, such error w as ha rmless. Acco rdingly , w e overrule Berm ea’s sole issue on a ppe al. I I . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the deci si on of the tr ial co ur t.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See 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 25t h day

of September , 200 8.