NO. 07-05 -043 7-CR 07-05-04 40-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 APR IL 11 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ RAUL GUT IERREZ, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF MO OR E CO UNT Y; TH NO . 370 7, 36 63; H ON ORABLE RO N EN NS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
In tw o c ompani on appe als R aul Guti er re z chal len g es his co nv ic ti ons for th e felony of fense s of

agg rav ate d sexual assau lt and indece ncy w ith a child. The prosecu tions a rose out o f separate e v ents ag ain st tw o rela ted c hil d v ic ti ms. H e present s t hree i ssu es chal len g ing ev ents dur ing the v icti ms’ tes ti mony . Hi s four th i ss ue c hal len g es admis si bil ity of ex pert te stimo ny f rom a sex ual assa ult nu rse examine r. W e w ill af f irm bot h judgme nts.2

App ellantw as initially

charged in March 200 5 of sex ually assau lting his five-y ear-old
cous in AH . This ind ictment cont ain ed tw o c ounts and w as ass ig ned c ause number 3663. The caus e number

3663 ind ictment all eg ed ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of AH and that appel lan t eng ag ed i n s ex ual co ntac t by touc hin g her g eni tal s. A sec ond i ndi ctment , fil ed in Ma y 2005 and assi g ned cause number 3707, co ntai ned four

co unts al leg ing ag g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t of hi s n ine -y ear-o ld cous in SH

. Appel lan t pled not gu il ty in both ca ses and the y w ere con solidat ed for a jury trial held in Octob er 200 5. In cau se nu mb er 366 3 the jury found appel lan t notg uil ty of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t but g uil ty of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d. It ass ess ed puni shmentat tw enty y ears c onfinement. I t found him gui lty of all four c ounts in caus e number

3707 and as ses sed puni shmentat li fe impr is onment.
SH and AH w ere the Stat e’s final tw o w it ness es. Jus t before thei r tes ti mony the t ri al court ad v ised cou nsel th at he plann ed to instruct the ju ry t hatit was the court’s po licy in all
cas es w here c hil dren had to t est ify “ that a c our

t- appoi nted CA SA v olu nteer si t w ith the chi ld” and the j ur

y w as not t o pl ace any si g nific ance on th at fact

. Defense co unsel
o bje c t e d t h a t “i t ’s a c o m m e n t o n t h e e vid e n c e ” an d wo u ld b o ls t e r t h e ch il d re n ’s t e s t im o n y. He re q uest ed the chi ldren “c ome up there by themse lv es and tes ti fy. ” The c our t ov er ru ledThe c our t’ s i nst ru cti on s tated : 1 Lad ie s a n d g entl emen of the jur y , t he next w it ness thathas been called is a child. It’s this Court’s po licy thatal l c h il d re n t hattestif y in this Court in any ca se are app ointe d a CASAv olun tee r. A C ASAv olun tee r is

– CA SA s tands for C our

t- Appoi nted Spec ial Adv ocat e. These are v o lunteers i n the co mmunity thatg o throug h s peci al train ing to ass is t t he c hil dren th ro ug h the proces s of ha v ing to tes ti fy in cour t. Let me tel l y ou, the CA SA v olu nteer in thi s cas e is M s. Gl or ia Santan a. And Ms . Santana is here to si t w it h thi s c hil d dur ing the proces s. The fact that she’s sitting w ith he r, y ou’re to place no sig nif icance w hat soever on the fact there’s a C ASA v olu nteer appoi nted in thi s c ase, and that she’ s s itti ng w it h the child in this case. You’re to place no significa nce o n t h a tf a c t . Ms. Santan a i s merely

as si sti ng the chi ld throug h her tes ti mony . W it h tha t, I’ ll l et couns el proceed

. 3 the o bje cti on and ins tr uct ed th e j ur y as des cr ibed , i n cluding the name of the CA SA 1
v olu nteer

. Appel lan t present s tw o c hal len g es to t he tr ial co urt’ s u se of the C ASA v olu nteer at tr ial

. Throug h hi s first is sue appel lan t al leg es a depr iv ati on of hi s ri g ht of co nfrontat ion as g uaranteed by the S ixth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, se cti on 10 of the T exas Constitu tion. In his secon d issue appe llant arg ues th e t ri a l co urt imp rope rly

comm ent ed o n the w eight of the ev iden ce throu gh its procedu re and improp erly bol ste re d the tes ti mony of the w it ness es. He als o arg ues the tr ial cour t shoul d hav e made a findi ng the procedu ra l modific ati on w as neces sar y before author iz ing us e of the CA SA
v olu nteer

.Preser v ati on of er ro r is a sy ste micreq uirement c our ts of appeal s mus t rev iew su a 2 spont e. Hughes v. State , 878 S.W .2d 142 , 151 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2) (op. on rehea ring)

. Con seq uentl y , w e ex press no o pin ion w hether a procedu ra l modific ati on l ik e tha t 3 ordered by

the tr ial co urt here w it hout a c ase- spec ificf ind ing of its neces si ty

enc ro aches on a defendant’ s S ixth A mendment r ig hts

. Compare Con ra d v . St ate , 10 S.W .3d 4 3, (Tex .App. – Tex ar kana 1999, pet. re f’d) and Car m ona v. State , 880 S.W .2d 2 27 ( Tex .App.

– Aust in 1994) , vac ated & r em anded o n oth er

gr ounds , 941 S.W .2 d 949 (Tex .C ri m.App. 19 97 ) ( bo th a pp l y i ng S i xth A me nd me nta na l y s i s from Maryland v. Craig , 497 U .S. 836, 110 S.C t. 3157, 111 L. Ed.2d 666 ( 1990) , to tr ial cour t’ s per mitt ing family

member to acc ompany witn ess to sta nd) , with In re D.T.C. , 3 0 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 ( Te x . A p p . –H o u s t o n [ 1 4 D i s t

. ] 2000, th n o pe t. ) (f in d in g Craig

ana ly sis inapp licable in similar situa tion).

4 Upon our rev iew

of the reco rd, w e f ind w e are un able to consid er a ppe llant’s f irst issue be cause his Sixth Am end me nt con ten tion was not prese rv ed for a ppe al. Ap pellan t’s 2 obj ect ion to the p re senc e of the CA SA v olu nteer di d not ass ert it w oul d i mpair hi s r ig ht of confro ntati on. See Mende z v. Sta te , 138 S.W .3d 334 , 340 -42 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 04) (mo st const itution al rig hts are su bject to pres e rva t io n requireme nt of Rule 33.1 ); Parades v. State , 129 S.W .3d 5 30, 5 35 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ( failu re to obj ectto te st im o n y a s v iol ati on of Con frontat ion Clau se w aiv ed c omplai nt)

. See als o Ram ir ez v. State , N o. 02
- 06-0 135 -CR, 2004 W L 299 774 7 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth Janu ary1 1, 20 07, no pe t.); Morri s v. State , N o. 02 -0 6- 0136- CR , 2007 W L 80012 (Tex .App. –For t W orth Januar

y 11, 2007, no pet.) ; and Me eks

v. Sta te , N o. 03 -0 3- 0509- CR , 2005 W L 1489593 ( Tex .App.
--Aust in June 23, 200 5, no pet. ) ( app ly ing r ule). 3Bol ste ri ng oc curs w hen t he s ole pur pose of test imony is to enhance the c re dib il ity 4 of another

w it ness , w it hout addi ng anythi ng to the proof o f a re lev ant fact. Coh n v . St ate , 849 S. W .2d 8 17, 8 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) . The presenc e of the CA SA v olu nteer ca nnot b e sa id to in volve bo lst e rin g. The State point s to appell ant’ s fail ure to re ass ert his object ion at the b eg inn ing of 5 the t est imony

as to AH as a w aiv er of the obj ect ion

. It ci tes auth or ity hol din g thata pa rty obje cting to the a dm ission of ev iden ce mu st cont inue to obje ct each time th e objection able ev ide nce is offered, o r els e w aiv e the obj ect ion

. See Fuentes v. Sta te , 991 S.W .2d 2 67, 273 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999) . But the State ci tes no author ity apply ing that r ule to obj ect ion s to a tr ial co urt procedu re rather than an e v ide nti ar

y ru lin g. The presenc e of the CA SA v olu nteer

w as not e v ide nce and t he r ule st ated in Fuen tes i s i nappl ic abl e here. 5 App ellantnext arg ues th e proce dure impe rmissibly bolste red the children’s tes ti mony and w as effect iv ely a c omment on the e v ide nce by the t ri al cour t. H e c ontends 4 5 that by i nst ru cti ng the jur

y the v olu nteer

w as cour

t- appoi nted itco uld hav e l ed th e jur y to infer the jud g e’s endorsementof the test imony

. Appel lan t cit es arti cl e 38. 05 of the Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , w hic h direct s judg es to refrai n f ro m commenti ng on t he w eig ht of
ev ide nce or

m aki ng anyremar k cal cul ated to conv ey to the jur

y the jud g e’s opini on of the
cas e. Tex . C ode Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 38.05 (V er non 197 9)

. Appel lan t c it es als o Hoa ng v. State , 997 S.W .2d 6 78 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1999, no pet .) , w hic h des cr ibe s i mprop er comments as i ncl udi ng tr ial co urt s tatement s i mply ing approv al of the St ate’ s a rg u me n t and sta tements that, “how ev er impart ial ly

theym ay

hav e been made, may hav e l ed th e j ur

y to infer the jud ge’s ow n op inion o f the m erits of

the case .” Id . at681.
W e find nei ther

the use of the cour

t- appoi nted v olu nteer , nor the c our t’ s i nst ru cti on, to be imprope r comments on the ev ide nce. The cour t told the jur

y w hy the v olu nteer

w as present and ins tr uct ed them to pla ce no si g nific ance on her presenc e. W e do no t a g re e the in struction im plied the co urt’s e ndo rseme nt of t he cred ibility

of the six- and ten-year-oldW e w ould b e required to overrule th e issue also beca use a ppe llant’s argume nt in 6 suppo rtco ntai ns no c it ati on to the re cord or su ppor ti ng auth o rit y a n d p re sent s n o subs tanti v e dis cus si on of ho w the w it ness ’s dis pla y of t he c ro ss depr iv ed hi m of his r ig ht to c onfront the w it ness . See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 38. 1( h)

. 6 w it ness es, or

othe rw is e c onv ey ed the jud g e’s ow n opi nio n of t he meri ts of the c ase. See Con ra d , 10 S.W .3d at 47 (reje cti ng a s imi lar arg ument)

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd is sue.
A p p e ll a n t ’s t h ir d is s u e a s s ig n s e rr o r t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s p e rm i t t in g S H t o d is p la y a cross dur ing her

tes ti mony . He arg ues th e e rror furth er depr iv ed hi m of his r ig ht of confro ntati on. As w it h his firs t is sue, re v iew of the record demons trates the pur por ted e rror w as not p re ser

v ed for re v iew

. The thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. 6
In his f inal issue ap pellan t challen ges the adm issibility of testim ony of Becky O’Neal, the s ex ual as saul t nurse ex aminer w ho ex amined AH

. H e arg ues the t est imony w as ina dmis si ble bec ause itfail ed to meet the t estfor reli abi li ty of sci enti fic t est imony adopt ed in Kel ly v. Sta te , 83 2 S.W .2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2), and include d inad missible hearsay . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Appel lan t’ s a rg ument first focuses on O ’N eal ’s tes ti mony relati ng st atements AH made at the t ime of her ex aminat ion of the chi ld. Rev iew

of the t ri al tes ti mony

rev eal s t hat, in re spons e to a q uest ion on c ro ss ex aminat ion by appel lan t’ s c ounse l, O’ Nea l re peated the t est imony

co ncer nin g the chi ld’ s s tatement s t o w hic h appel lan t ear li er had obj ect ed. A p p e ll a n th a vin g a d d u c e d t h e t e s t im o n y, h is h e a rs a y o bje c t io n is n o tp re s e rve d fo r r e vie w. Rey es v. State , 84 S.W .3d 6 33, 6 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)

.Appel lan t c ontends O’ Nea l’ s t est imony w as based only

on a study

per formed by 7 a Dr

. Na n c y K e ll o gg o f

so m e 3 6 p re gn a n ta d o le s c e n tgi rl s . T h e S t a t e a rg u e s O ’N e a l’ s o wn ex per ien ce prov ide d a b asi s for her opi nio n. W e need not a ddress thes e c ontent ion s. 7 Appel lan t als o pre se n ts argu m e n t a d d re ss in g O’N e a l’s op in io n te st im o n y expla in ing
w h y A H m i g h tn o t e x h i b i t a n y p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e o f s o m e o f t h e a s s a u l t s s h e a l l e g e d

. W e f ind th at even a s sum ing the adm ission of the te stimo ny w as error, it w ould not require 7
rev ersal of

the trial court’s judgm ent , und er the sta nda rd of Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 44.2( b)

. Und e r that sta ndard w e mustdi sreg ard an er ro r unl ess i t affects a s ubst anti al ri g ht. Id. A substan tial rig ht is a f fecte d w hen t he error h ad a substa ntial an d injurious e f fect
or i nfluenc e i n det e rm in in g the jur y 's v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 66, 2 71 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 97). T he e rroneo us ad mission of ev iden ce do es no t af

fect a de fend ant ’s subs ta nt i al r i g ht s i f aft er ex am i ni ng th e rec ord as a w ho l e th e rev i ew i ng c ou rt has a f air
ass urance the er ro r did not influ ence the jur y , or had buta s li g ht effect. Solom on v . St ate , 49 S. W .3d 3 56, 3 65 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)

. Appel lan t arg ues the u nreli abl e ex per t t est imony

“ w hol ly mis g uid ed th e j ur

y to it s v erdict.” The re cord does not suppo rtthe ass erti on. O’ Nea l’ s o pin ion tes ti mony co ncer ned the a bsenc e of phy sic a l e videnc e of penetrati on of a fiv e- y ear-o ld. Ap pel lan t w as not charg ed w it h penet ra ti ng AH ’s g eni tal s a nd th e jur y acq uitted him of the c harg e i nv olv ing penetrati on of he r anus. As to AH , appel lan t w as conv ic ted o nly of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d.8

The record prov ide s a fair as surance any

er ro r inv olv ed i n the admi ss ion of the o pin ion tes ti mony

di d noti nfluenc e the j ur y in reac hin g its v erdict. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th is sue. Fi ndi ng no rev ersi ble er ro r, w e aff ir m both jud g ments of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.