1
... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F TE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2
- 09
- 22 0- CR
K E NNE T H D W AY NE S P R ADL I N AP P E L L ANT V
. THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 3 55TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j u ry c o n v i c ted A p p e l l a n t K e n n e th D w a y n e S p rad l i n o f i n d e c e n c y w i th a c hi l d by co nt ac tan d a ss es se d hi s puni sh m entatf i ve yea rs’ confi nem ent . T he t r i al co urts ent enc ed hi m ac cordi ngl y. I n one poi nt , A ppe l l antco nt end s t hatt he t r i al co urter red by “ app l yi ng s t at e e vi den t i ar y rul e t hereby d en yi ng [ hi m ] t he const i t u ti o n a l ri ght t o ful l y confront hi s accuser by quest i oni ng her

about her2

pos si bl e m ot i ves , bi as , an d prej ud i ce to s uch an ex t entt hat[ he] co ul d not pres ent a vi t al def

ens i ve t heo r

y. ” Beca us e w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d not abuse i t s di scret i on by excl udi ng t he proffered evi dence, w e a ffi r m t he t r i al c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. O ut si de t he p res enc e o f t he j ur y, A ppe l l antof

fered evi den ce of

a pr i or s e x u a l a b u s e c o m p l a i n t m a d e b y th e c o m p l a i n a n t a g a i n s t C h ri s t o p h e r M a rk C ai n. The com pl ai nant t est i fi ed outs i de t he j ury’ s presence thatC ai n had been a fam i l y fr i end, t hatshe had t ol d her school coun sel or i n G ranbu r y t hathe had m o le s t e d h e r , t h a ts h e h a d n e v e r re c a n t e d , t h a ts h e h a d n e v e r t o ld C h ild Prot ect i ve S er

vi ces (C PS ) t hati t had not happ ened, t hat t he pol i ce never t al ked to h e r a b o u t th e a l l e g a ti o n s , a n d th a t th e i n c i d e n t “ re a l l y h a p p e n e d .” C a i n te st i fi ed outs i de t he j ury’ s presence t hatt he com pl ai nant and her fa m ily h a d liv e d w it h h is a u n tin J o h n s o n C o u n ty , t h a tt h e c o m p la in a n t ’s fa m ily m em bers w ere “ bac k s t abb ers, ” an d t hati n l at e 2004 or 2005 , a C PS ca se w or ke r

ca l l ed hi m an d s ai d “ t hatt here w as a ca se ag ai ns t[ hi m ] t hrough t h e m o n s u p p o s e d l y t o u c h i n g [ t h e c o mp l a i n a n ti n t h e ] wro n g wa y . ” He t e s t ifie d t h a th e h a d d e n ie d t h e a lle g a t io n a n d n e v e r h e a rd a n y m o re a b o u tit fro m C P S o r th e c o m p l a i n a n t’s fa m i l y . H e c o n te n d e d th a t th e c o m p l a i n a n t’s fam i l y fabr i ca t ed t he al l eg at i on a gai ns thi m be ca us e h e h ad st oppe d he l pi ng t hem
. O n c ros s- exa m i nat i on, w hen as ke d w het her i tw as hi s t es t i m ony t hathe3

had ne ver

t ouc hed t he com pl ai na nt atal l , ev en i nnoc ent l y, he an sw ered, “P retty m u c h .” H e also ad m i tted tha t he h a d b e e n arres ted for i n d e c e n c y w i th a c hi l d, ap parent l y i nvol vi ng a not her ch i l d. Fi nal l y, t he def

ens e a l so of

fered Katy L ove ’ s grand j ur y t es t i m ony out si de t he j ur y’ s pres enc e. Her t es t i m ony provi des t ha tshe had be en a CPS i nve st i gat or

i n Jo hns on County for a l i t t l e m ore t han t hree ye ars and t hats he had nev er

heard t he com pl ai nant m ake an out cr y agai nstanyon e ot her t han A ppel l ant . Love al so t est i fi ed t hatshe w as not aw are of t he com pl ai nant ever rec ant i ng a ny a l l ega t i on of s exu al abus e or

of an y t ape co nt ai ni ng a rec ant at i on. A ppel l antexpl ai ned t hathe w ant ed t o put t he evi dence on t he record and show t he C ourtt hatshe di d recantand t hat t hat ’ s w hy [ C ai n] w as n’ tpros ec ut ed bec aus e o f he r rec ant at i on. A nd w e b el i eve t he fac tt hats he sa i d i tan d t he fac tt hati tgot rec ant ed i s adm i ss i bl e t o s how he r ha bi t , he r

m ot i ve for

rea so ns for m a k i n g this sto ry u p ag a i n st m y cli e n t. T h e tri a l c o u rt e x c l u d e d a l l th e e v i d e n c e re g a rd i n g th e p ri o r c o m p l a i n t. L a te r, A ppel l ant ’ s t r i al counsel “ass ert [ ed] one m ore t i m e t he defense[ ‘ s] desi re t o ask t hos e que st i ons t hat w ere as ke d of [ t he com pl ai nan t ] out si de t he pres enc e o f th e j u ry a n d a l s o th e te s ti m o n y o f C h ri s to p h e r C a i n a n d [L o v e ’s g ra n d j u ry t est i m ony] before t he j ury. ” Th e t r i al courtagai n excl uded t he evi dence. That aft er noon, t he j ur

y rec ei ved t he ca se . The nex tm or ni ng, A ppe l l antfi l ed a m o ti o n to a l l o w ex tr i n sic e v i d e n c e , rai sing a c o n sti tu ti o n a l co m p l a i n t.2
... S ee T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 4 (b ), 4 1 2 (b )(2 ), (c). 3
... S e e C a se y v . S tate , 2 1 5 S .W .3 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); M o n tg o m e ry v . S tate , 8 10 S. W
. 2d 372 , 3 91 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1 991 ) (op. on re h ’g ). 4 W e a g re e w it h t h e S t a t e t h a tA p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n t o a l l o w e x t r in s ic evi den ce w as unt i m el y a nd t hathi s con st i t ut i ona l co m pl ai ntw as notpres er ved , b u t w e b e l i e v e tha t his ea rl i e r obj e c ti o n s s u ffi c i e n tl y p res e rve d h i s c o m p l a i n ts un de r r ul e s 404(b) a nd 412. H ow ever, n o th i n g i n t he proffered evi dence 2 i ndi ca t es t hat t he com pl ai nan trec ant ed her ac cus at i ons ag ai ns tCai n or t hatt he c h i l d h a d a m o ti v e to m a k e u p ac c u sa ti o n s a g a i n st A p p e l l a n t, w h o ad m i tted to for m er Texa s D PS O f

fi ce r Tony Sc orci o t hathe ha d ki ss ed t he com pl ai nan ton n u m e ro u s o c c a s i o n s a n d s ta te d th a t h e “ m i g h t h a v e ” to u c h e d h e r b re a s t. W e t herefore h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc ret i on by ex cl udi ng t he proffered evi dence. 3 W e consequen t l y over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s sol e poi ntand a ffi r m t he t r i al c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 29, 2010