In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00168-CR

MARIA ALICIA GENOVESI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 198th District Court

Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B22467

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A Kerr County jury found that Maria Alicia Genovesi threatened to commit a mass 

shooting at a local church and convicted her of terroristic threat, a third-degree felony. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.07(e). After she pled true to the State’s punishment-enhancement 

allegation, the jury assessed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Genovesi 

argues that the trial court erred by allowing an undisclosed witness to testify and by denying her 

motion for new trial without a hearing.1 

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decisions to allow testimony by the 

State’s rebuttal witness and to overrule the motion for new trial without a hearing. As a result, 

we overrule Genovesi’s points of error. Even so, we must modify the trial court’s judgment to 

reflect the proper degree of offense. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

I. Allowing Testimony by the State’s Rebuttal Witness Was Not an Abuse of 

Discretion 

In her first point of error, Genovesi argues that the trial court erred by allowing the 

State’s undisclosed witness, Greg Longenbaugh, an investigator with the Kerr County Sheriff’s

Office (KCSO), to rebut her defense theory. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

ruling. 

A. Standard of Review and Relevant Caselaw

Article 39.14(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, in general and

upon request, the State must provide the defendant with “the name and address of each person 

1Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the 

precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3

the disclosing party may use at trial to present evidence.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 39.14(b) (Supp.); see Martinez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 30, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Martinez 

v. State, 131 S.W.3d 22, 29 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Although the debate on 

whether Article 39.14(b) applies to a rebuttal witness has not yet been settled by the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals, we assume its application for the purposes of this analysis. See Depena v.

State, 148 S.W.3d 461, 465 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004, no pet.); In re H.T.S., 

No. 04-11-00847-CV, 2012 WL 6743562, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 31, 2012, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (declining to decide the issue but finding no bad faith in the State’s lack of 

disclosure “even if Article 39.14(b) applies to rebuttal witnesses”). 

If the trial court allows an undisclosed witness to testify, we review the decision for an 

abuse of discretion. Martinez, 867 S.W.2d at 39; Martinez, 131 S.W.3d at 29 (citing Bridge v. 

State, 726 S.W.2d 558, 566–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). During our analysis, we “answer two 

questions: (1) did the prosecutor act in bad faith by failing to disclose the names of the witnesses 

ahead of time; and (2) could the defendant reasonably anticipate that the witnesses would testify, 

although their names were not included on the witness list.” Martinez, 131 S.W.3d at 29 (citing 

Bridge, 726 S.W.2d at 566–67). 

B. Factual and Procedural History 

The evidence at trial showed that Genovesi’s name was well known to the Kerrville 

Police Department (KPD) dispatchers in Kerr County. Francisco Galvan, public safety 

communications manager for the KPD, testified that “everybody in the dispatch circle there

[was] familiar with the frequent calls from [Genovesi].” According to Galvan, the KPD received
4

calls from suicide prevention or crisis hotlines reporting on events related to Genovesi under 

“different aliases.” Lauren Scarlett, a dispatcher for the KCSO, testified that she had prior 

similar calls relating to Genovesi, and Jeffrey Robitaille, an officer with the KPD, testified that 

he had been dispatched as a result of previous calls related to Genovesi. Robitaille also testified

that Genovesi “had access to weapons based on previous calls that dispatch looked at.” 

The calls forming the basis of the offense in this case occurred on May 29, 2022, when 

two people assisting the Suicide Crisis Hotline called the KPD and the KCSO to report a threat. 

The callers both stated that they flagged an online “chatter” who claimed to be suicidal, had 

“homicidal ideation towards two local churches,” and was on the way to the churches with a 

shotgun. Both callers provided the chatter’s IP address and mentioned other identifying 

information, including two phone numbers given by the chatter and a statement that the chatter 

lived at the end of Lafayette Road. Galvan testified that dispatchers had already associated a 

Lafayette Road address with Genovesi. The IP address was traced to Genovesi’s place of

business, which was owned by Brent Bates, Genovesi’s foster father. Dispatchers used the

phone numbers to trace the phone’s physical location. One number belonged to Genovesi, who 

was located across the street from her work, and another phone number belonged to Bates. 

According to Robitaille, “Bates actually provided IP addresses and several other items, like his 

Wi-Fi router codes[,] to dispatchers with consent.” Robitaille arrested Genovesi at Bates’s 

office. 

Genovesi’s defensive theory, discussed during opening statements, argued “that IP 

addresses are easily spoofed” and that “[s]omebody -- almost assuredly [it was] her ex-
5

husband . . . ha[d] been spoofing her IP address, trying to make it look like she [was] texting a

suicide hotline so that the police [would] come to her house and harass her.” Lucas Flores, an 

investigator with the KCSO, testified that IP addresses and phone numbers could be spoofed but 

that “spoofing them both simultaneously . . . would take a level of. . . skill that [he had not]

seen.” 

To support the defensive theory, Genovesi included call sheet reports dating back to 2018 

showing that prior calls related to suicide attempts by Genovesi had turned out to be false. Those

reports included notes from responders stating that Genovesi’s ex-husband “[wa]s calling 

hotlines and 3rd parties to falsely report suspicious activity and welfare checks on [Genovesi] 

with the intent to harass or annoy [her].” Genovesi also introduced evidence showing that, on 

April 1, 2020, an IP address was traced to Genovesi’s physical address and that officers were 

dispatched there, but Genovesi, who was alone, said she did not contact the Suicide Crisis 

Hotline.2 

To rebut the defensive theory, the State called Longenbaugh. The State admitted that 

Longenbaugh was not named as a witness because the State had not anticipated the introduction 

of the defense exhibits relating to prior calls. In response to the State’s argument that 

Longenbaugh’s absence from the witness list was not due to bad faith, Genovesi clarified that 

she was not accusing the State of any bad faith. Even so, Genovesi objected to Longenbaugh’s 

testimony, stating, “[W]e were given a document in our discovery portal that said prior reports, 

2Genovesi does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. As a result, we only discuss 

the facts known to the trial court at the time it decided to admit Longenbaugh’s testimony. 
6

including reports of various other officers, and this witness was noticeably and glaringly absent

from that.” As a result, Genovesi argued that she did not have adequate time to prepare. 

The trial court decided to send the jury to an early lunch break to provide Genovesi with 

an opportunity to hear Longenbaugh’s testimony and conduct an examination outside of the 

jury’s presence. The court then found no evidence of bad faith on the State’s part and decided to 

permit Longenbaugh’s testimony. 

In front of the jury, Longenbaugh testified that he went to Genovesi’s house after a 

“[p]hone call came into the suicide hotline that Ms. Genovesi allegedly consumed 28 unknown 

pills.” Longenbaugh testified that he conducted a welfare check and that Genovesi had slurred 

speech, was groggy, but otherwise appeared fine. 

During cross-examination, Genovesi established that Longenbaugh had no way to prove 

that Genovesi had ingested any pills, that Genovesi’s slurred speech could have been the result of 

seizures she was known to have, and that there was no way to determine whether Genovesi had 

placed the calls to the suicide hotline.

C. Analysis 

Here, Genovesi cannot meet the first portion of the two-part test because she did not 

assert that the State acted in bad faith by failing to list Longenbaugh as a witness. Instead, she 

affirmatively stated that she was not “mak[ing] any accusations as to the first” portion of the test. 

As for the second part of the test, the San Antonio Court of Appeals has 

examined three areas of inquiry: (1) the degree of surprise to the defendant; 

(2) the degree of disadvantage inherent in that surprise (e.g., the defendant was 

aware of what the witness would say, or the witness testified about cumulative or 

uncontested issues); (3) the degree to which the trial court was able to remedy that 
7

surprise (e.g., by granting the defense a recess, postponement, or continuance, or 

by ordering the State to provide the witness’ criminal history). 

Id. (citing Hardin v. State, 20 S.W.3d 84, 88 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d)). Here, 

while there may have been some surprise to Genovesi, it was alleviated when the trial court took 

a lunch break to allow Genovesi to hear the substance of Longenbaugh’s testimony outside of the 

jury’s presence. After, Genovesi did not argue that she needed additional time to prepare. See 

Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (per curiam) (finding that a claim 

of surprise over an undisclosed witness is harmless if a defendant fails to move for a 

continuance). Moreover, the record shows that Genovesi was able to adequately cross-examine 

Longenbaugh about the substance of his testimony. 

We conclude the two-part test reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

admitting Longenbaugh’s testimony. As a result, we overrule Genovesi’s first point of error. 

II. Deciding Against a Motion for New Trial Hearing Was Not an Abuse of Discretion 

In her second point of error, Genovesi argues that the trial court erred by denying her

motion for new trial based on juror disability without holding a hearing. Because we find that 

Genovesi’s motion, and the affidavit supporting it, failed to show reasonable grounds to hold a 

hearing, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to forego a hearing. 

A. Factual Background

Genovesi timely filed a motion for new trial based on discovery that a juror suffered

“from a mental disability and brain damage due to a head injury.” Genovesi’s motion for new 
8

trial was supported by the affidavit of Robert W. Carey, Jr.3 Carey said that he was at the 

Kerrville Elks Lodge when he met the juror, who said that he was discharged from the Navy “for 

medical reasons, with a permanent disability,” after hitting his head against a submarine on 

numerous occasions and suffering a cardiac arrest. According to Carey, the juror told him that,

during his service, he suffered “brain damage and a permanent disability” and that cardiac 

“defibrillation caused him to be unable to think categorically and discern information necessary 

to be able to perform his duties onboard the nuclear submarine.” In a conclusory manner, Carey 

also opined that the juror “should have been disqualified for consideration as a juror.”4 

Genovesi argued in her motion that the juror was disabled and requested the trial court to 

conduct a hearing. Without a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial by written 

order. 

B. Standard of Review and Applicable Law 

“We review the trial court’s denial of a hearing on a motion for new trial for abuse of 

discretion.” Cyr, 308 S.W.3d at 30 (citing Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009)). “[A] hearing on a motion for new trial . . . is not an absolute right.” Id. (citation 

omitted). Rather, the movant must “establish[] the existence of ‘reasonable grounds’ showing 

that [s]he could be entitled to relief.” Id. (quoting Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339). 

Section 62.102 contains the general qualifications for jury service. TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 62.102. Because being “of sound mind” is among the list of requirements for jury 

3Carey described himself as a person who was part of Genovesi’s “support network.” 

4

“[A] motion for new trial . . . must be supported by the affidavit of . . . [someone] who was in a position to know the 

facts.” Cyr v. State, 308 S.W.3d 19, 30 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (quoting Baldonado v. State, 745 

S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988, pet. ref’d)). 
9

service, TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 62.102(5), “[a] juror is absolutely disqualified only when it 

appears that he or she is insane,” Scaggs v. State, 18 S.W.3d 277, 283 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, 

pet. ref’d) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 35.19, 35.16(a)(4)). Under Article 44.46,

A conviction in a criminal case may be reversed on appeal on the ground that a 

juror in the case was absolutely disqualified from service under Article 35.19 of 

this code only if:

(1) the defendant raises the disqualification before the verdict is entered; or

(2) the disqualification was not discovered or brought to the attention of the 

trial court until after the verdict was entered and the defendant makes a showing 

of significant harm by the service of the disqualified juror.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.46 (emphasis added). Also, “[a]lthough not absolutely 

disqualified, a person who has a bodily or mental defect that would render them unfit for jury 

service may on voir dire be challenged for cause.” Scaggs, 18 S.W.3d at 283 (citing TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.16(a)(5)). 

C. Application 

Carey’s affidavit contained no facts suggesting that the juror was insane. Perhaps for that 

reason, Genovesi did not argue in her motion for new trial that the juror was absolutely 

disqualified from service. Instead, she argued that the juror was “disabled.” Yet, Carey’s 

affidavit did not say how long ago the juror had suffered a brain injury, what the brain injury 

was, or how it impacted the juror’s life, if at all, following his medical discharge from the Navy. 

Further, even though Carey said the juror had suffered “brain damage and a permanent 

disability” (emphasis added), nothing showed that the brain injury, as opposed to some other 

medical condition, was permanent. A juror can become disabled by a “physical illness, mental 
10

condition, or emotional state which hinders one’s ability to perform one’s duties as a juror.” 

Landrum v. State, 788 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (per curiam). Although Carey’s 

affidavit spoke to the juror’s ability to perform on a nuclear submarine, it contained nothing

suggesting that the juror was unable to perform his duties as a juror. In fact, he was elected by

the other members of the jury to serve as the foreperson. 

Simply put, Carey’s affidavit failed to show “that the juror was absolutely disqualified or 

otherwise legally unqualified to serve as a juror.” Scaggs, 18 S.W.3d at 283. As a result, the 

trial court was free to find that Genovesi’s motion for new trial and affidavits failed to show 

reasonable grounds requiring the trial court to hold a hearing. See id. Accordingly, we hold that 

the trial court’s decision to forego a hearing on Genovesi’s motion for new trial was not an abuse 

of discretion. 

III. We Modify the Judgment to Reflect the Proper Degree of Offense

This Court has the power to “reform the judgment . . . [when] the necessary information 

is available for us to do so.” Rodriguez v. State, 675 S.W.3d 54, 57 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2023, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b)); see Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1993). “This authority to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent upon a party’s 

request, nor does it depend on a party’s objection at trial.” Williams v. State, 911 S.W.2d 788, 

791 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.) (citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)).

The State charged Genovesi with terroristic threat, which is a third-degree felony. TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.07(e). Under the heading “Degree of Offense,” the judgment contains 
11

the phrase “3RD DEGREE FELONY ENHANCED TO 2

nd DEGREE FELONY.” Although the 

State included a punishment enhancement allegation, it only allowed Genovesi to “be punished

for a felony of the second degree.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (emphasis added). In 

other words, while the enhancement allegation was used to elevate Genovesi’s punishment 

range, it did not change the classification of the underlying offense. See id.; Ford v. State, 334

S.W.3d 230, 234–35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); State v. Rosseau, 398 S.W.3d 769, 776 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2011) (citing Calton v. State, 176 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)), 

aff’d, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). As a result, the judgment’s recitation that 

Genovesi’s degree of offense was a second-degree felony is incorrect, and we must modify the 

trial court’s judgment to reflect the proper degree of offense.

IV. Disposition 

We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Genovesi was convicted of a thirddegree felony. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: February 7, 2024

Date Decided: February 28, 2024

Do Not Publish