NO. 07-07 -002 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B APR IL 10 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ JOH N A. R ED ER , Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 6-41 4,2 85; HON. CECIL PURY EAR, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. John A. Rede r ( app ella n t ) app eals his con v iction for indece ncy w ith a child. Via three i ss ues, he c ontendsthe tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to 1) admit ev ide nce from a C PS
rep or t an d 2)g ran t hi s mo ti on s for c on ti nu an c e. W e affi r m. Iss ue On e The ev ide nce that appel lan t t houg ht t he c ourt w ro ng fully excl uded c onsi ste d of infor mati on c ontai ned i n a repor t t o the C hil d Protecti v e S er v ic es. The i nformati onT h r o u g h th e in d ic tm e n t, th e S ta te a lle g e d th a t a p p e lla n t ( w h o w a s th e liv e - in b o yf r ie n d o fth e v ic tim ’s 1 m ot her ) i m pr oper l yt ouched t he vi ct i m w hen she was f i v e. T he al l egat i ons i n t he CP S r epor t enco m passed a n u tte rlyi n d e p e n d e n t o c c u rr e n c e b e tw e e n tw o c h i l d re n . 2 co n ce rn e d an al le gat io n th a t th e victi m (who wa s fo u r yea rs o ld atth e tim e ) was “p u rgin g” at ho me and in schoo l and w as caught by her un cle in bed w ith he r fo ur-y ear-old co usin’s hea d be tw een her legs. During the latte r ep is o d e , t h e child purpo rtedly said “‘ do it like daddy doesi t.’ ” W ho made the repor t t o C PS went u nmenti oned an d s o di d the i denti ty of the unc le. So, it is unkno w n i f the i nformati on was communi cat ed by the uncl e, by

the chi ld, by the chi ld’ s mot her , or

by the next door nei g hbor after heari ng it asg oss ip in a l ocal beauty sh op. Mo re ov er , CP S made no dis posi ti on of t he all eg ati on; in other words, itmade
n o d e term inatio n of

w het her the allegations in th e repo rt were true or not. Giv en th ese ci rc umstan ces , and as sumi n g t h a t th e repor t had rele v ance, see Johns on v . St ate , 933 S.W .2d 1 95, 1 98- 99 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1996, pet. re f’d ) (stat ing thatthe deci si on abou t
w het her evidence of

prior sex ual con ductis admissible is one of relev ance ), it at the very lea st woul d be w it hin the re alm of reas onabl e di sag re ement t o c oncl ude t hat a ny pote nti al
v alu e of t h e r e p o rtwas far outw eig hed by the potent ial preju dic e or co nfusion of is sues accom pan y ing i t. T his is espe cially so w hen not hing in the docu me nt purports to su gg est tha t som eon e oth er than app ellantcomm itted the act s und erly ing the indictm entat bar. 1 Con seq uentl y , we c annot say thatthe tr ial co urt a b used it s d is creti on i n excl udi ng the infor mati on. Me tts

v. Sta te , 22 S.W .3d 5 44, 55 0 ( T e x. App.–F ort W orth 20 00, n o pet .) (h old ing thati n matt ers o f e vide n ce, the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on c an be uphel d by any leg it imat e g ro und)

. Therefore, we ov er ru le the i ss ue.3

Iss ues Two an d T

hr ee In th e ne xt and f inal two issues, app ellantconte n ds tha t the trial court erred in deny ing his moti ons to cont inu e the tr ial

. Con ti nuanc e was neces sar y , in his v iew , so that he c oul d fles h outthe all eg ati ons in the aforementi oned CPS re por t, w hic h al leg ati ons he believed w ere exculpato ry . W e overrule the issue s. W hether the tr ial co urt er red i n deny ing the cont inu ancesdepend s u pon w hether it abuse d its di scre ti on. Gal lo v. State, 239 S.W .3d 757 , 764 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). Furthe rmore , w hen a contin uan ce is so ught af ter trial b egins, the movant m ust est ablish that the d ela y

i s n eeded becau se of “ some unex pect ed occ ur re nce si nce the t ri al beg an,
w hic h no re a so n a ble di li g ence coul d hav e ant ic ipa ted” and w hic h c aused hi m sur pr is e. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 29.13 (V er non 200 6)

. Tw o moti ons for c onti nuanc e are at is sue. O ne was filed before tr ial beg an, t he oth er af te r t ria l began. Regarding the latte r, appe llant ha d received the CPS report in question during the w eek p rior to trial. Havi ng receiv ed th e repo rt b efore trial, the discovery of itsco ntent s fal lsouts ide the sc ope of “ some unex pect ed oc cur re nce si nce tr ial began .” (E mphasi s s uppl ied ). As for the ini ti al moti on to co nti nue fil ed before the j ur y was sel ect ed, a ppel lan t ef fe ct ivel y so ug ht t ime to find so meone he cons ide re d to be a mater ial w it ness . The
w itness so ught w as the “uncle” me ntion ed in th e CPS repo rt to w hich w e previously all uded. Gi v en thisreaso n for seeki ng a cont inu ance, appell ant had the burden to i ll ust ra te how the uncl e’stes ti mony

was material before h e c oul d obt ain a c onti nuanc e. Hubb ard
v. State , 912 S.W .2d 8 42, 8 4 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 1995, no p et.)

. And, he th4

attempt ed to sa ti sfythi s req uirement by arg uin g that the u ncl e’stes ti mony co uld be u sed to s how thatappel lan t never

as saul ted t he c hil d and that someone els e di d. W e do not q uest ion thatev ide nce ind ic ati ng so meone o th e r than the a cc used commi tted the c ri me i ndeed may be mat er ial

. Y et, appel lan t’ s arg ument isfounded on a defective fa ctua l basis. Th at is, not hing in the CPS rep ort exculpate s him. Noth ing i n it sug g est s t hat h e di d notmol estthe ch ild a s a lle g ed i n the i ndi ctment , even i f the ci rc umstan cesmenti oned i n the repor t were deemed tr ue. Rat her , t he c ircums tanc es desc ri bed (w hen i nter

tw ine d w it h i mag ina ti on)su g g est thatthe chi ld coul d hav e been the
v i ct i m o f other

mole statio n at th e ha nds o f unkn own pa rties, or so a rea sona ble jurist could hav e i nter preted the c ircums tanc es. Bu t, nothi ng i n the repo rts u ggests that appel lan t
nev er co mmitt ed th e acts for w hic h he was charg ed. Con seq uentl y , we c a n n o t sa y t hat
a t ri a l co u rt wa s o b li ga t e d t o p o s t p o n e t ri a l s o t h a ta p p e ll a n tco u ld f in d t h e “u n c le ” a n d h a ve him tes ti fy about w hat h e s aw . See State v. Di xon , 206 S.W .3d 5 87, 5 90 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)( hol din g thatw hen t he standard of rev iew is one of abused dis creti on, t hen t he tr ial court’s de cision mu st be af f irmed if sup porte d by any v alid ground). A c c o rd in gl y, we a f

f ir m t h e ju d gm e n tre n d e re d b e lo w.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.