### NUM BERS 13-0 8-00 087- CR 13-08- 0008 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
RIC A RD O N OEL R ODR IGUE Z, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 24 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appell a n t R ic ar do N oel R odr ig uezappeal s h is co nv ic ti ons for ag g ra v ated sex ual
ass aul t, a f irs t- deg re e felony , and i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d, a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 021 (Ve rnon S upp
. 200 8), § 21. 011 (Ve rnon 200 3). In a single is sue, R odr ig uezco ntends thatar ti cl e 38. 07 of the code of cr imi nal pr ocedu re v iol ates the2

Eq ual Protec ti on Cl ause of the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on. U. S. C ON ST . amend. X IV, § 1; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. 38 .0 7 ( Ve r no n 20 05 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND The facts in thi s c ase ar e undi sput ed. By tw o s epar ate i ndi ctment s fil ed i n s epar ate tria l c o u rt cause num bers, Rod rig uez w as cha rg ed wi th sexuallyassau lting S.S., a child under 14 y ear s o f age , and indece ncy w it h V.V., a chil d under 17 y ear s o f age

. The cas es
w er e c onsol ida ted for

tr ial , w her e R odr ig uezpl eaded n ot g uil ty

. The jur y hear d tes ti mony from, inter alia , S.S. and V.V. S.S . testif ied th at for a period o f app rox ima tely tw o y ears, beg inn ing w hen s he w as nin e y ear s o ld , Ro d ri g uezfondled her i n a s ex ual manner

and
caus ed c ontac t betwee n thei r sex ual org ans. V. V. t est ified thatR odr ig uezr ubbed h er br east s, and w hil e l y ing on a bed, r oll ed her on t op of him and tol d her sh e l ooked “ fine.” A j ur y conv ic ted Rodr ig uezon both count s, and he ele cte d to g o before the tr ial co urt for puni shment

. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed R odr ig uezto conc ur re nt t er ms of co nfinement of 45 y ear s for the ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t charg e, and 15 y ear s for the ind ecenc y w it h a chi ld charg e, an d as ses sed a fine of $2,000 for eac h c har g e. II. D I S CUS S I ON In hi s s ole i ss ue, R odr ig uezch all eng es the c onst it uti onal it y of a rt icl e 38. 07 of the
c o d e o f cr im in a l p ro c e d u re , wh ic h p ro vid e s in it s e n t ir e t y: (a ) A conv ic ti on u n d e r Ch a p ter 21, Sect ion 22.011, or Sect ion 22.0 21, Penal C ode, is su ppor

tabl e on the u ncorroborate d tes ti mony of the v ic ti m of the s ex ual off ense if the v ic ti m in f o rm e d any person, othe r than the d efendant, o f the al leg ed offense w it hin o n e year after the date on w hic h the off ense is al leg ed to hav e oc cur re d. (b ) The r eq uir ement t hat t he v ic ti m in form anot her person of an al leg ed of f ense doe s not ap ply if

a t the t ime o f

t he alleged of

f ense the victim w as a person:3 (1) 17 years of

age or y oun ger; (2 ) 65 y ear s o f age or ol der ; or (3 ) 18 y ear s of ag e or older w ho byreaso n of

age or phy sic a l or mental di seas e, de fect, o r inj ur y w as subs tanti all y

unabl e to sa t i s fy t h e p e r s o n ' s n e e d fo r fo o d , s h e l t e r , me d i c a l c a r e , or prot ec ti on fr om h ar m. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art 38.07. Su bsec ti on ( a) pr ov ide s w hat may be r eferr ed to
as a ti mely

outc ry or cor ro bor ati on r eq uir ement, and s ubsec ti on ( b) pr ov ide s a n ex empti on t o t h e t im e ly o u t c ry o r c o rr o b o ra t io n re qu ir e m e n tfo r a ll e ge d vic t im s wh o a re yo u n g, e ld e rl y, or g ener all y

handi cappe d. Rod ri g uezco ntends that ther e i s n o r ati onal bas is for t he St ate t o “ ex empt” al leg ed vict im s 1 7 ye ar s o f age or y oung er

from t he out cr

y or co rrobor ati on r eq uir ement of subs ect ion ( a) of the a rt ic le. He spec ific all y cont ends that all ow ing hi s c onv ic ti ons to s tand on th e un cor ro bor ated tes ti mony of S.S. and V.V. v iol ates the Eq ual Protec ti on C lau se of the United Sta tes Constitu tion beca use the co nvictions o f o the r indiv idua ls w ho a llegedly commi tted sex ual off enses ag ain st abl e- bodi ed v ict ims betw een t he ag es of 18 and 6 4
ma y only be suppo rted by unco rroborat ed testimo ny of the alleged v ictim i f a time ly outcry
w as made. See ge ner all y Cit y o f Cleb u rn e , T

exas v. C leb ur

ne Li vi ng C enter

, 473 U .S. 432, 439 ( 1985) ( the E q ual Protec ti on C lau se re q uir es all persons simi lar ly situ ated to be tr eated ali ke)

. The Stat e, r ely ing on H o h n v . Sta te , co n tends thata r ule of ev ide nce or cr imi nal pr ocedu re w hic h r est s u pon t he di ff er ence betw een mi nor s a nd th ose w ho hav e r eache d major it y has a r ati onal bas is and does not d eny eq ual pr otec ti on. See 538 S.W .2d 6 19, 6 2 0
- 2 1 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 1 9 7 6)

. Hoh n w as an appe al chal len g ing the suffici ency of the
ev ide nce suppo rt ing a c onv ic ti on for sex ual abus e of a chil d on the g ro und that the al leg ed4

v icti m’s tes ti mony

w as not s uff ic ien tl y

co rrobor ated by

othe r ev ide nce. Id

. In find ing suf f icient evidence , t he co urt of criminals app eals no ted that “[i]t has bee n he ld in
numer ous pr osec uti ons for r ape t hat t h e tes ti mony of a prosec utr ix

under the ag e of
cons ent n eed notbe c or ro bor ated ev en th oug h the re i s n o out cr y or pr ompt r epor

t of the def end ant ’s alleged acts.” Id . at621 (c it ati ons omit ted)

. A . Lev el of Scrutiny In r ev iew ing a s tatut e for an eq ual pr otec ti on v iol ati on, w e mustfir st deter mine the lev el of scr uti ny

r eq uir ed. A s tatut e i s e v alu ated under “ str ic t s cr uti ny ” if i t i nter feres w it h a “f und am ent al rig ht” or discriminat es against a “susp ect class.” Kadr m as v. Dick

ins on Pub lic Schools , 487 U .S. 450, 458 ( 1988)

. Other w is e, t he c hal len g ed c las si ficat ion i n a sta tute need on ly

be “ ra ti onal ly

r ela ted to a leg it imat e g ov er nmental pur pose” to s ur v iv e the eq ual protec ti on chal len g e (t he “rati onal basi s” tes t)

. Hen der son v. State , 962 S.W .2d 5 44, 560 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ). “[ S]ex off enders ar e not a sus pectcl ass for e q ual pr otec ti on purp oses. ” In r

e M.A.H. , 20 S.W .3d 860, 866 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 20 00, n o pet .) ( ci ti ng Cutsha ll v. Sundq uist , 193 F .3d 4 66, 4 82 ( 6th C ir . 1999) (“ Con v ic ted s ex off enders a re not
a s uspec t c las s.” ). Therefore, w e w il l appl y the ra ti onal bas is tes t i n thi s c ase. U nder the ration al basis test, similarly situate d individuals mu st be trea ted equally unless th ere is a
ra ti onal ba sis f o r dis par ate t re atment. W hit wort h v . By num , 699 S.W .2d 1 94, 1 97 (Te x .19 85). B. A pp licab le L aw &A nal y sis Beca use we analyz e Rodriguez’s const itution al challen ge unde r the ration al basis tes t, w e pr esume that the s tat u te i s vali d and that the l eg is lat ur e has not act ed5

unr eason abl y

or ar bit ra ri ly

. Rod

ri guez v. Sta te , 93 S. W .3d 60, 69 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02). Ev er y r eason abl e pr esumpt ion i s made i n fav or of cons ti tuti onal it y

and v ali dit y

of the sta tute unti l the c ontr ar y i s c lea rl y

sh ow n. El

y v . St ate , 58 2 S. W .2 d 41 6, 419 (Te x . C r i m. App. 1979) ; Ski

ller n v . St ate , 890 S.W .2d 8 49, 860 (Tex

. App.–A ust in 1994, pet. re f’d)

. It is R odr ig u e z’s b u rden to show thatthe sta tute is unc onst it uti onal

. See Rod ri guez , 93 S.W .3d a t 69. W e hav e notfound anot her Tex as cas e deal ing w it h w hether ar ti cl e 38. 07 v iol ates the Equal Protect ion Clause . Th eref ore, we w ill proce ed to a rev iew o f t h e statu te’s leg is lat iv e hi sto ry
. See e.g., Agui rr e v . St ate , 127 S.W .3d 8 8 3 , 8 8 7 (Tex. App. –Au stin 2004, pet. re f’d) ( “I n det er mini ng w hether the c o mp l ain ed- of cl ass ific ati on i n ar ti cl e 62. 0105 [of the c ode of cr imi nal pr ocedu re ] v iol ates the Eq ual Pr otec ti on C lau se, w e ex amine the leg is lat iv e i ntentof the s tatut e.” ). In 1983, the leg is lat ur e first amended ar ti cl e 38. 07 to
ex empt indi v idu als charg ed w it h sex ual of fenses ag ain st minors fr om the ti mely outc ry or
co rro b o ra ti on r eq uir ement. See A c t o f M a y 5 , 1 9 8 3 , 6 8 t h L e g
. , R

. S

. , c h

. 3 8 2 , § 1, 19 83 T EX
. S ESS
. L AW S E RV
. 2090 ( Ver non)

. Ar ti cl e 38. 07, a s i t w as amended, re ad: A c onv ic ti on unde r Cha pter 21, Penal C ode, is su ppor tabl e on the unco rroborat ed te stimo ny of the victim of

the sexual of

f ense if th e v ictim inf orme d an y

per s o n , o t her tha n the def end ant , of the of f ense w ithin six months after

the date on w hic h the off ense is al leg ed to hav e occ ur re d. The re q uir ement t hat the v ic ti m infor m another per son of an al leg ed offense does not a pp l y i f t h e v i c t i m w a s y o u n g e r t h a n 1 4 y e a r s o f a g e a t t h e t i me of the all eg ed offense. The cour t s hal l ins tr uctthe ju ry

that the time w hic h l apsed betw een the all eg ed offense and the t ime itw as re por ted s hal l be c onsi der ed by the jur y onl y for t he pur pose of a ss e ss in g the w eig ht t o be g iv en to the te s ti mo ny

o f t he v i c ti m. Id . ( amended l ang uag e under li ned)

. The sta tute w as subs eq uentl y amended i n 1993 and 2001, br ing ing i t t o i ts cur re nt f or m. Actof Mar ch 16, 1 993, 73r d Leg ., R. S., ch. 200, § 1,6

1993 Tex

. Sess

. Law Ser v . 389 (V er non) ; Act of J une 15, 2001, 77th Leg ., R. S., ch. 1018, § 1, 2001 Tex . Se ss . Law Ser v . 211 2 (V er non) ( codi fied atT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.07)

. Bef ore the 200 1 am end me nts, th e Sen ate Research Cen ter prep ared a b ill ana ly sis
re por t, w hic h s tates i n r ele v ant p art: In s ome ca ses , v ic ti ms w ho by r eason of ag e or

phy si cal or

m ental di seas e, defec t , o r i n j u r

y a r e i n c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g fo r t h e ms e l v e s ma y b e u n a b l e to re p o rtan al le ged crim e to an o th e r pe rso n . H. B. 1 2 0 9 e xem p ts a pe rso n age 17 or y oung er , age 65 or

older , or a person ag e 18 or ol der w ho by r eason of age or physi cal or men tal disea se, de fect, o r inj uryw as sub stan tially unabl e to sat is fy the p er son’ s n eed for f o o d , shel ter , medi cal ca re , or pr otec ti on from har m from the re q uir ements that the v ic ti m inf o rm an other per son of sex ual as saul t or ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t w it hin one y ear so that a c onv ic ti on for suc h an off ense is su ppor tabl e on the u ncor rob o ra ted tes ti mony

of the v ic ti m. Sen ate Research Cen ter, Bill Analysis, H.B. 12 09, 73 Le g., R.S. , (2001 ) avai lab le at : http: //w w w .ca pit ol. sta te.tx .us /tl odocs /77R/anal y si s/h tml/ HB 01209E. htm ( las t v isited J un. 29, 2 009)

. Rod ri g uezcontends that ar ti cl e 38. 07 tr eats i ndi v idu als ac cus ed of sex ual off enses differentl y

bas ed upon the ag e of the all eg ed v ic ti m. B ut, in cr afting the ex empti ons that
ar e found i n s ubsec ti on ( b) , t he l eg is lat ur e bel iev ed that the cov er ed i ndi v idu als “ maybe
una b le to repo rt an alleged crime to ano the r person, ” becau se the y may be easily int imi dated or

unabl e to ar

ti cul ate t hemsel v es, and w er e i n need of an ex empti on from t he t i me l y o u t c r

y o r c o r r o b o r a t i o n r e q u i r e me n t

. Th e e x e mp t i o n i s “ r a t i o n a l l y r e l a ted t o a legitimate g overnme nta l purpose ” of protect ing society ’s y oun g, elderly, g e n e rally more
v uln er abl e, or

handi cappe d i ndi v idu als , w ho th e l eg is lat ur e has found “ maybe u nabl e to repo rt a crime to an oth er person .”7

Besi des maki ng the super fici al ass erti on of uneq ual tr eatment, R odr ig uezhas fail ed to de m o n strat e tha t t her e i s n o r ati onal r ela ti onshi p betw een t he ex empti on and a leg it imat e g ov er nment pu rp ose. After a c ar eful anal y si s o f th e hi sto ry and pur pose of article 38. 07, w e reject Rod rig uez’s arg um ent that the sta tute is arbitrary and irration al in the mann er

i n w hic h he cont ends. W e hold that Rodr ig uez ’s f eder al cons ti tuti onal r ig ht t o equal prote ction u nde r law w as not v iolate d by article 38. 07. Accordin gly , Rodriguez’ s sole is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ments of the tr ial co urt ar e aff ir med.

_________

_________

_____ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 23rd day

of Jul y , 200 9.