1 Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 12, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00736-CR JUAN MARTIN REYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 05-18-00736 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns a nd Justices Myers and Carlyle Opinion by Chief Justice Burns A jury convicted Reyes of indecency with a child, and the tria l judge sentenced him to thirteen years confinement. In two issues, Reyes claims the tri al court erred by allowing witnesses to testify about extraneous offe nses. Finding Reyes failed to p reserve these complaints, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. I. Background When she was eleven years old, NG was touched by the husband of the co-pastor at her family’s church. NG outcried to her mother and told her mother that Reyes had touched her breasts, vagina, and buttocks. After NG’s mother filed a compla int with the police, Michael Margolis, a forensic interviewer with the Dallas Children’s Adv ocacy Center, interviewed NG.2 At trial, Margolis testified as an outcry witness about the inc idents NG shared during her interview. Margolis’s testimony included NG’s statements that (1) when Reyes asked her to help move boxes out of the church kitchen and she bent over to pick up a box, Reyes slid his hand in NG’s leggings and underwear and squeezed her buttocks; (2) an i nstance in the toddler room at church, during which Reyes gave NG ice cream and squeezed her b reast on top of h er clothes; (3) an instance when Reyes grabbed NG as she walked down a church h allway, pulled back her leggings and underwear, and touched her vagina; and, (4) when R eyes grabbed NG’s forearm as she walked out of a church restroom, pulled her close, and touc hed her vagina over her clothes and moved his hand while he was touching her. The prosecution sough t to introduce the te stimony of six additi onal witnesses—two adults and four children—to testify that Reyes committed similar extra neous offenses against each of them. As required by article 38.37 § 2(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and rule 404(b)(2) of the Texas rules of evidence, the trial court condu cted a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of all si x witnesses’ testimony. Each of the six witnesses testified at the pretrial hearing. DG, Reyes’s sister-in-law, testified Reyes often greeted her with a hug and a slap on her buttocks, despite her asking him to stop. At a family celebration when DG was in her mid-forties, s he bent over picking up a coat and Reyes slid his hand between her legs and up towards her buttock s and vagina. DW, also Reyes’s sister-in-law, testified Reyes slapped her buttocks during gree tings and said she knew the slaps were sexual in nature because of comments Reyes made. At a fam ily birthday celebration when DW was in her early forties, Reyes squeezed DW’s right breast. When DW slapped Reyes’s hand away, Reyes laughed.3 The State also sought to admit the testimony of four additional children. Reyes was a close family friend of CG, and Reyes re gularly greeted her with a hug and a slap on the buttocks. When CG was thirteen or fourteen, Reyes grabbed CG by the wrist as s he came out of a restroom at church, pulled her close, and tr ied to kiss her. AC, who was R eyes’s eleven year-old niece, testified that during a family celebration Reyes tickled her on her chest and breasts. EC who was nine and also Reyes’s niece, testified Reyes once touched her vagina ove r her clothes in a tickling motion, and on different occasion, put his finger inside her anus throu gh her clothes. Finally, KH, Reyes’s eight-year old niece, testified that Reyes touched her vagina o ver her pants during a family Thanksgiving celebration. KH did not believe it was an accident because Reyes did not seem sorry. At the close of the article 38.37 hearing and after each of the six witnesses testified, Reyes objected only to the testimony of the two adult witnesses. Reye s argued article 38.37 applies only to extraneous acts committed again st children and thus did not permit the adults to testify about the extraneous acts. Reyes also asserted the adult testimony wo uld also be more prejudicial than probative in painting him as a criminal in general beyond any e vidence that he inappropriately touched children. The State argued that pursuant to article 38 .37 § 2 of the Texas Code Criminal Procedure and the “doctrine of chances,” 1 the evidence was admissibl e to show modus operandi, intent, absence of mistake or accident and defendant’s characte r and acts in conformity with his character. The State also argued that the adult testimony was s o substantially sim ilar to the sexual contact alleged by NG that it constituted Appellant’s signature and a pattern of behavior among multiple victims, and was therefore admissible pursuant to rule 404(b). Finally, the State argued that the testimony of each of the witnesses was more probative than prejudicial.

1 The “doctrine of chances” provides that “highly unusual events are unlikely to repeat themselves inadvertently or by happenstance.” De La Paz v. State , 279 S.W.3d 336, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).4 The trial court ruled the testimony of each witness was relevan t to the defendant’s character, including acts performed in conformity with his char acter, explained her balancing analysis regarding the probative n ature of the evidence and its prejudicial nature pursuant to rule 403, and found the testimony of all six witnesses was admissibl e. Reyes did not request a running objection to the testimony of t he two adult witnesses. Except for one child, KH, at trial each of the witnesses who ha d testified at the article 38.37 hearing also testified. Reyes did not object, nor re-urge his p rior objection to the admission of the testimony of any of the five. 2 Reyes testified that NG’s assert ions, and those of the five o ther

witnesses who testified about his inappropriate touching, were fabricated, misunderstood accidents or teasing, or uninten tional mistakes. The jury convicted Reyes of one count of indecency with a child . Reyes complains the trial court erred by allowing: (1) pursuant to art. 38.37, adul t testimony regarding extraneous offenses; and (2) the testimony of all five extraneous witnesse s because the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. The State alleged Reyes did not pro perly preserve these complaints. We agree. II. Analysis Preserving a complaint for appellate review requires a timely o bjection that includes the grounds for the requested ruling. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. R ULE 33.1(a)(1)(A). Further, preserving an objection regarding purportedly inadmissible evidence also requ ires an objection each time the evidence is offered, or a running objection. Lane v. State , 151 S.W.3d 188, 192-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Smith v. State , 595 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (“We have consistent ly

2 NG’s mother also testified ab out NG’s initial outcry and descr ibed the incidents about which Margolis testified. NG testified about two of the incidents. The jury also heard from the police investigator and an expert for the prosecution who corroborated the timeline an d elements of th e outcry witnes s testimony.5 held that the failure to object waives any error in the admissi on of evidence tending to show an extraneous offense.”). At trial, Reyes failed to object to admission of any of the fiv e extraneous witnesses’ testimony and did not request a running objection. Accordingly, Reyes failed to preserve any error regarding admission of the tes timony about which he now complai ns. Even if not waived, however, particularly given the State’s rel iance on rule 404(b) in addition to article 38.37 and Reye s’s failure to address admiss ibility pursuant to r ule 404(b) in his briefing, we would find no error. We accordingly affirm the tr ial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 180736F.U05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE6 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

JUAN MARTIN REYES, Appellant

No. 05-18-00736-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1711390-S. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Myers and Car lyle participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of thi s date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered August 12, 2019.