i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 72 3- CR L e on Da vis LITT LE , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 186th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-8672 Honora ble Maria T ere sa He rr, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: September 9, 2009 AFF I RMED L eon Davis L ittle was indi cted on thirteen counts of i ndece ncy with a child by contac t and ag g ravated sexual assault. A j ury returne d a verdict of guilty on all thirteen c ounts. The trial cour t found the e nhance ment para g raphs to be tr ue, and assessed punishm ent of life on eac h count, to run
c on c ur re ntl y . L itt le a

pp e a ls h is c on vic tio n, arguin g the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in : 1) a dmi tti ngina dmi ssi ble04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 2- hear say evidenc e; 2) fa iling to qualify a witness as a

n expert; an d 3 ) admitting L ittle’s DVD state me nt m a de to a

po lyg ra phe xami ne r. We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND S.E. spent most of her childhood living w ith her father a nd her paterna l g randmother , who died when S.E. wa s ten. After her g randmother ’s death, S.E. beg an spendingtime at the home of J ohn Welch, an elde rly

neig hbor who took g ood car e of S.E. When S.E. was thirteen, a ppellant L eon L ittle moved into W elch’ s house. S.E. testified that a fe w wee ks after

he moved in, L ittle beg an sexually abusing S.E. wheneve r We l ch was g one or aslee p. L ittle f

irst be g an touching her brea sts a nd vag inal are a on the outside of he r clothing , and later be g an touching S
. E
. ’s b re as t s and vag ina under her c lothes, and insertinghis finge rs in her. L ittle eventually put his penis in S.E., perfor med ora l sex on her, a

nd had her

perf orm oral se x on him . S. E. state d th a t th e a bu se oc c ur

re d ev e ry da y a ft e r s c ho ol, bu t sh e did

no t te ll a nyon e be c a

us e she did not think they

would believe he r. One da y while L ittle was s ex u al ly assaulting S.E., her cousins knocke d on the door of Welch’s home. S.E. put on her shirt to answer the door, but buttoned her shirt incorre ctly . Her cousins left, then c ame back and told S.E. she needed to g o with them to her aunt’s house. When she g ot there, he r aunt a

nd cousins confr onted her about what was going on; S.E. told them what wa s happening . Her

aunt ca lled the police. Af ter S.E. spoke with police, she was take n to the hospital and examined by

a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)
. L ittle was arr ested and indicted on thirteen c ounts of indece ncy with a child by

contac t and ag g ravated sexual assault. The jury returne d a ver dict of g uilty on all thirteen c ounts, and the trial04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 3- court found the enhanc ement par ag raphs to be tr ue and a ssessed punishment of concur re nt life sentenc es on ea ch count. This appe al followed. H E ARS AY E XCE P T I ON I n his first issue, L ittle argues the trial c ourt err ed in a dmitti ng inadmissible hearsa y from the SANE, Be tty Merc er, into evidenc e. The S tate int roduce d Merc er’ s notes from he r examination of S.E. throug h a custodian of records at the hos pital wher e S.E. was e x amined. In addition, Merce r
rea d to the jury

statements made by

S.E. about the sexual assaults. A trial court’s decision t o admit or ex clude e vidence is reviewe d under a n abuse of discretion standard. B u rd

e n v . S t a te , 55 S .W .3 d 60 8, 61 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ). A t ri a l c ourt a bu se s it s dis c re tio n w he n it s det e rm inatio n o f e vid e nti ary a dmi ssi bil ity

fa lls ou tsi de the zon e of

re a so na ble disag ree ment. Mc Car ty

v . S tate , 257 S.W .3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A statement made for pur p o s es o f m ed ical diag nosis or treatment in which the patient de sc ri be s me dic a l hi sto ry re late d to pa st o r p re se nt s y mpt oms and

the c a us e or so ur c e the re of

, if
rea sonably

pertinent t o d i agnosis or treatment, is an exception to the hearsa y rule. T EX . R. E V ID . 803(4). This hea

rsay exception is based on the idea that a pat i en t u n d er stands the importance of be ingtr uth fu l w ith me dic a l pe rs on ne l in or de r t o r e c e ive an a c c ur a te dia g no sis and tr e a tme nt. Ad dit ion a lly , th is c ourt

re c e ntl y no te d th a t: Statements by

a suspec ted victim of child abuse a bout the cause and sourc e of the child’s injuries ar e admissible under an ex ception to the rule ag ainst hear say pursuant to T e xas R

ule s of Ev ide nc e 80 3( 4) , w hic h p ro vid e s an e xce pti on to t he he ars ay

ru le for ‘ [s] tatements made for the pur poses of me d i ca l d i ag nosis or treatment a nd descr ibing medic al history , or past or pre sent sy mptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or g ener al cha

rac ter of the cause or external sourc e ther eof insofa r as rea sonably

per t i n en t to diagnosis or tre atment.’ To qua lify for this exception, the su sp e c te d c hil d a

bu se vic timmus t un de rs tand the imp or

tanc e of be ingtr

uth fu l w ith medical pe rsonnel. C o u rt s should therefor e conside r whe ther the c hild had an04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 4- a pp re c iatio n for why

the state me nts we re ma de wh e n d e te rm ini ngthe a pp lic a bil ity of this hear say

exception. Con sta nc e v . S

tate , No. 04-08-00326- CR, 2009 W L1477791, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 27, 2009, no pet.) (me m. op., not desig nated f or publication) ( internal c itations omi tted). To dete rmine whether a child under stands the importance of truthfulness whe n speakingto medical personne l, the revi ew i n g co u rt l ooks to the entire r ecor d. Se eGr e e n v . S tate , 1 9 1 S. W. 3 d

8 8 8 , 8 9 6 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14 Dist .] 2006, pet. ref’d)
. L it tle argues there is no evidence S.E. understood the importance of beingtruthful when descr ibing the se x ual assaults to Merc er, a nd conseque ntly

the s t at ements served only to bolster S.E.’s testimony . We disag ree . The re cord shows that when S.E. met with medical pe rsonnel following her outc ry , she ac knowledg ed she w as there “bec ause of L eon . . . . he r aped [S.E.] .” She also ac knowledg ed to Merc er that L eon told S.E. “he was g oing to g et [her] protection beca use he did not want to go to jail by
. . . g etting [ S.E.] preg nant.” Additionally , S.E. testified she had be en afr aid to te ll a

ny one about the abuse beca use she knew he r father would blame her a nd hit her whe n he found out; neve rtheless, she ma de the dec ision to t alk to her f amily and Mer cer

about the sexual assaults. The ex amination took place in a hospi tal, Merc er ide ntified herse lf as a nur se, and Me rce r believed she told S.E. t hat she wa s there f or diag nosis and treatment. Reviewing the entire rec ord,
we c on c lude th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat S. E. , w ho wa s th ir te e n at th e tim e of the a ssault s, unde rs too d th e ne e d to be tr uth fu l. A c c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e the state me nts contained w ithin Mercer ’s written notes, a s well as her testimony at trial, comply with Rule 803(4). Acc ording ly , we hold the tria l court di d not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidenc e. L ittle’s first issue is overrule d.04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 5- E X PE R T T E S T I M ONY I n h is se c on d iss ue , L itt le c omp la ins the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ngDr . N anc y

Ke llo g g to gi v e o p i n i o nt es t i m o n y

wi t h o u tqu al i fy i n g h er

as an e x p ertwi t n es s . Du ri n g t ri al , Dr
. Ke l l o gg testified that 90 per cent of children a

nd teena g ers who hav e b een se x ually abused ha

ve norma l or non-spec ific sexual assault exams. She also offe red opinion testimony about why children ma

y not dis c los e se xua l a

bu se . L itt le c on te nd s th e State ne ve r q ua lif ie d D r. Ke llo g g a s an e xpe rt a s to the se two statements. We disag ree . The burde n of establishi ng that a witness is qualified a s an expert is on the offe ring party
. W y att v . S tate , 2 3 S. W.3 d 1 8, 27 (T e x . Crim . App . 2 00 0) . “ Th e qu e sti on of wh e the r a

wi tne ss offe red as an expert possesses the r equire d qualifications rests larg ely in the trial court’ s discretion. Ab se nt a c le ar a bu se of that disc re tio n, the tr ia l court ’s de c isi on to ad mit or e xclu de te sti mony

wi ll not be disturbed.” Id. The trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without refe renc e to any g uiding rules and pr inciples. Mo ntgom e ry v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Thus, we wi ll u ph old the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on a s lo nga s it

is w ith in t

he zon e of r easo nab le di sa g re e me nt. Se x ton v . S tate , 93 S.W .3d 96, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The Te x as Rules of Evidenc e provide three separ ate stipulations reg ardingadmissibili ty of expert testimony
. Ve la v . S tate , 209 S.W .3d 128, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). First, Rule 104(a ) require s the court to addr ess “[ p]reliminary questions conce rning the qualification of a person to be a witness . . . .” T EX . R. E V ID . 104(a) . S ec o nd, Rule 702 states: “I f scientific , technica l, or other specia liz ed knowledg e will assist the trier of f act to understand the evidenc e or to de termine a fac t in issue, a witness qualified a s an expert by knowledg e, skill, ex perie nce, tr aining , or educ ation may testify there to in the form of a

n opinion or otherwise.” T EX . R. E V ID . 702. Finally , Rules 401 and04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 6- 402 provide testimony

is admissibl e only

if it “tend[s] to ma k e t h e ex i s t ence of a ny fac t that is of conseq u en ce t o t h e determination of the ac tion more probable or less proba ble than it would be without the evidence .” T EX . R. E V ID . 401, 402. Ba sed on the a

bove, the trial court must make three dist inct deter minations when discer

ning whether expert testimony

is admissibl e: 1) the w itness m u s t qualify as an e x pert by

rea son of knowledg e, skill, ex perie nce, tr aining , or educ ation; 2) the subject matter of the testimony must be
an a pp ro pr iate on e fo r e xpe rt

te sti mony ; and

3) a dmi tti ngthe e xpe rt

te sti mony

mus t a c tua lly

a ssi st the fa ct-finde r in de ciding the ca se. Ve la , 209 S.W .3d at 131 ( qu oti ng Ro dge rs v . S

tate , 205 S.W .3d 525, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). These fac tors are common l y ref err ed to as 1) qua lification, 2) re liability , and 3) r eleva nce. Id. L ittle challeng es Dr. K ellog g ’s qualifications, arg uing the trial court ne ver pr onounced he r qualified to testify

as an ex p er t wi tness. Review of the rec ord re veals Dr . Kellog g ’s extensive backg round in the field of child abuse. Dr. Kelloggis a profe ssor of pediatrics at the Unive rsity of Texas Health Scienc e C enter Medical School. Since 1988, she has worke d in the Depa rtment of Pediatrics in the a re a o f ch i l d abuse, both phy sical and se x ual. In that capa city , she tea ches othe r p r o f e s s i o n a l s a b o u tt h e t o p i c , p u b l i s h e s art i c l e s r e l a t e d

t o t h e t o p i c , an d

e x a m i n e s p a t i e n t s . In
a dd iti on to he r p ro fe sso rs hip , D r. Ke llo g g a lso wo rk s f or Chi ld S a fe , w he re sh e e xami ne s and a ssi sts suspected victims of c hild and adolesc ent sexual abuse. F inally , she also wor ks for the Cente r for Miracle s at Christus S anta Rosa Children’ s Hospital, where she see s ch i l d re n who are suspec ted victims of phy sical abuse and neg lect. L ittle cites nothing in the re cord that would support an argument disqualifying Dr. Ke llogg ’s testimony . Whil e the tria l court neve r explicitl y pro n o u n ce d Dr . Kellog g was a qualified e x pert04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 7- witness, it impl iedly

did so when it overr

uled L ittle’s objection that the S tate did not lay the prope r predic ate r eg ardingDr. Ke llogg ’s expertise. Dr. K ellog g testified that duringher y ear s of pra ctice, she has pe rfor

med more tha

n 8,500 examinations of suspected victims of childhood and adole scent abuse. She supported her testimony reg arding sexual assault ex ams with information g arne red f rom her y ear s of ex perie nce, as well as peer -re viewed articles. Ba sed on the a bove, the tria l court did not
a bu se its dis c re tio n in fi nd ingDr . K e llo g g qu a lif ie d a s a n e xpe rt ba se d o n h e r k

no wl e dg e , s kil l, experience , training , and educ ation. Se e Ve la , 209 S.W .3d at 131. L ittle’s se cond issue is overrule d. R E CORDE D S T AT E M E NT I n his third issue, L ittle contends the trial cour t erred in admitting the DVD of an or al statement g iven by

L ittle in prepara

tion for a poly g raph ex amination. L ittle argues he was in custody at the time he g ave the statement, and the ref ore a rt i cle 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e re quired the e x clusion of his s t at em en t at t rial. We revie w a tria l court’s rulingon a motion to s u

p p r e s s f o r an a b u s e o f d is c r e ti o n , a f

f o r d in g a lm o s t to ta l d e f

e r e n c e to th e tr ia l c ourt’s deter mination of historical fac ts that the rec ord supports, espe cially when ba sed on an e valuation of t h e wi tn es s ’s cr ed i b i l i t y

an d d em ea n o r, b u tre v i ew i n g de novo the c ourt ’s a pp lic a tio n o f t

he law t o th e f a c ts. Bale nti nev . S

tate , 7 1 S. W.3 d 7 63 , 7 68 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Do sse tt v . S tate , 216 S.W .3d 7, 23 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2006, pet. ref ’d). I t is we ll s ett led tha

t th e iss ua

nc e of a de fe nd ant’ s Miranda rig hts and the protec tions of article 38.22 of the Code of Crim i nal Proce dure do not a pply to statements made dur ing non-custodial interr og ations. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 3 8. 22 , § 5 ( Ve rn on

20 05 ); Stone

v . S tat e , 5 83 S.W. 2d

41 0, 41 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ). Th e se ri g hts and pr ote c tio ns do no t a pp ly to voluntary

st at em en ts resulting f

rom non-custodial interr og ation. Lam v . S tate , 25 S.W .3d 233,04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 8- 239 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). Custodial interr og ation is que stioning initiated by law enfor ceme nt a fter a person has been taken into c ustody or otherwise deprive d of his f ree dom in any signific ant way
. Can no n v . S tate , 691 S.W .2d 664, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The issue at hand is whether poly g raph e x aminer Char les Speag le was acting as an ag ent of law e nf or c e me nt w he n h e qu e sti on e d L itt le . T he Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l App e a ls h a s h e ld t hat on ly when a non-law e nforc ement state a g ent is acting i n t andem with poli ce to investig ate a nd g ather evidenc e for

a cr iminal pr osecution ar e Miranda war nings r equire d. W

ilk e rso n v . S tate , 173 S.W .3d 5 2 1 , 5 2 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e c o u rt s t at edt h e f o l l o wi n g: Of c ourse, Miranda does not a pply to a ll c ustodial que stioning. I t ge nera lly applies only to que stioning by law enfor ceme nt of fice rs or their ag ents. There are two ty pes of “state ag ents”: all those who are employ ed by any state age ncy are , by definition, “state ag ents , ” b u t o n ly

th o s e w h o ar e w o r

k in g f o r o r o nb e h a lf

o f p o li c e are law-e nforc ement “state ag ents.” Although state employ ment clea rly makes a person an “a g ent of the State,” that label does not, by itself, make the pe rson an “ ag ent of the State” for the purpose of defining “custodial interrog ation.” No t al l governme nt worke rs must be familiar w ith and rea dy to administer Miranda wa rn ing s or c omp ly with the proce dural re quirements of A rticle 38.22. As not ed by Professor L aF ave, w h e n“ th e o f

f ic ia l h a s n o t b e e ng iv e np o li c e p o w ers, Mi r anda ha s b e e n h e ld inapplicable to questioning by school offic ials, welfa

re inve stigators, medical personne l, prison counselors, a nd parole or probation officer s.” Id. at 527-28 ( c iti ng

Pa e z v . S tate , 68 1 S.W. 2d 34 , 3 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); see 2 W. L A F AVE & J. I S R EA L , C RI M I N A L P ROCE DURE § 6.10(c) at 622 (1991 Supp.)). Ultimately , the inquiry is “whethe r the custodial interview

[was] conducte d (explicitl y or implicit l y ) o n b eh alf of the police for the pr ima ry purp os e of

g a the ri nge vid e nc e or

state me nts to be us e d in a

late r c ri min a l pr oc e e din g a g a ins t the interview ee.” W

ilkerson , 173 S.W .3d at 531. Th e tr ia l c ourt c on du c te d a mot ion to su pp re ss he ari ng a t wh ic h pa ro le of fi c e r R e g ina

Ne ri o
and Spe a g le te sti fi e d. Ne ri o s tate d th a t th e c on dit ion s f or L itt le ’s pa

ro le inc lud e d c on se nt to p e ri od ic po lyg ra phte sti ng , a

nd L itt le sig ne d a

fo rm a c kn ow le dg ingthi s c on dit ion . Ne ri o te sti fi e d th a t L itt le04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 9- c a me to th e faci li ty

fo r t he po lyg ra

phte st o n h is o wn , a

nd wa s n ot r e str a ine d in

any wa y . N e ri o stated she was not unde r direc tion by law enfor ceme nt or any one investig ating the instant case or any other c ase involving L ittle. Several other parole es we re te sted on the same da y . Spe a g le te sti fi e d th a t he did no t w or k f or Ne ri o or the state ; he wa s e mpl oy e d b y a pr ivate company . Spe agl e re l at ed L ittle was g iven a he alth questionnaire a nd consent for

m, which he
re vie we d a

nd sig ne d in the int e rv ie w r oo m pr ior to q ue sti on ing . Sp e a g le re view e d th e fo rm wi th L ittle, which provided warnings that L ittle could consult an attorney prior to or duringany questioning about unadjudicate d offe nses, and that he could remain silent and at a ny time stop the test. Be fore administering poly g raph tests, the parole office provides the examiner with a pac ket of information re g ardingthe par olee; L ittle’s packe t included a police re p o rt concerningL ittle’s int e ra c tio n with S.E
. Duri ng the pr e -i nte rv ie w, c on du c te d be fo re the a c tua l polyg ra phte st, Spe a g le
a sk e d L itt le qu e sti on s a

bo ut t he sp e c if ic of fe ns e inv olv ing S.E
. L itt le ini tia lly wa s r e luc tant t o ta lk about the off

ens e, t elling Spea g le he would not answ er que stions about the incident; however , Speag le continued t o ask questions, and L ittle eventually talked about the of

fense with Speag le. Con se qu e ntl y , th e int e rv ie w wa s ter min a te d an d the po lyg ra

phte st w a s n e ve r a dmi nis te re d a s L itt le had conf essed to havingsexual contact with a minor. Be cause of t he trial court’s unique ability to judge the demeanor of the wit nesses, we g ive g reat defe renc e to its findings of f act, includinga findin g o f wh et her c ustodial interrog ation
occur red. Se e Ga rza v . S

tate , 34 S.W .3d 591, 593 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. ref ’d). The trial court he ard the testimony from Ne rio and Spea g le, and wa s unconvince d L ittle’s pre-inter view conducte d prior to a sc heduled polyg ra ph test constituted custodial interrog ation. The e vidence prese nted does not suppor t the conclusion that Speag le was acting in ta ndem with p o l i ce o ff

i cers04
- 08
- 00 72 3- CR

- 10- wh e n h e int e rv ie we d L itt le duri ngthe pr e -i nte rv ie w. Con se qu e ntl y , the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in admit ting L ittle’s statement. See W ilkerson , 173 S.W .3d at 523-24. L ittle’s third issue is overrule d. C ONCL US I ON Th e trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in admitting the SANE nur se’s medic al re port testimony , nor did it err in a dmitti ng the DVD of L ittle’s statement taken p ri o r t o a s cheduled poly g raph e x amination. I n addition, the trial court did not abus e it s discretion in allowing Dr. Kellog g to testify

as an e x pert witness. Ac cording ly , the trial cour t’s judgme nt is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

DO NO T PU B L I SH