Court Opinion

ID: 9391758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 06:10:48.037817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.338329
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed April 25, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-21-00501-CR
                               No. 05-21-00502-CR
                               No. 05-21-00503-CR
                               No. 05-21-00561-CR

                       ANTONIO B. LOREDO, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court
                           Collin County, Texas
      Trial Court Cause Nos. 401-82300-2021 ct. 1, 401-82300-2021 ct. 2,
                  401-82300-2021 ct. 3, 401-82300-2021 ct. 4

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Molberg, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg

      Appellant Antonio B. Loredo appeals four judgments: one convicting him of

indecency with a child by sexual contact, two convicting him of aggravated sexual

assault of a child, and one convicting him of sexual assault of a child. Loredo argues

the trial court erred by admitting a timeline into evidence and that this error was

harmful. We affirm in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
                                          I. BACKGROUND
        On appeal, Loredo challenges the trial court’s decision to admit the following

timeline into evidence during the guilt/innocence phase at trial:1

    1
      The timeline is in State’s Exhibit 2. In the image we include above, we have excluded the exhibit
sticker and have redacted the names of the complainant and complainant’s siblings. The redactions refer
to complainant, except for the second redaction in the 1999/2000 entry, the two redactions in the May 17,
2002 entry, and the redaction in the October 22, 2003 entry, all of which refer to complainant’s siblings.
“Aaron” refers to complainant’s husband.
                                                  –2–
                                     II. ANALYSIS
      We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of

discretion. See Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018);

Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). A trial court abuses

its discretion when its decision lies outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.

Beham, 559 S.W.3d at 478; Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 370.

      On appeal, Loredo argues the timeline was inadmissible because it “contained

several factual inaccuracies” and was “an improper summary of evidence.” In

response, the State argues (1) Loredo’s arguments regarding the admissibility of the

timeline do not comport with his trial objections and thus have not been preserved

for our review, and (2) even if error occurred, the error was not harmful. We agree

with the State.

      A.     Error Preservation
      A timely, specific objection and ruling by the trial court, or refusal to rule, is

generally required in order to preserve a complaint for appellate review. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)–(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App.

2004). “The two main purposes of requiring a specific objection are to inform the

trial judge of the basis of the objection so that he has an opportunity to rule on it and

to allow opposing counsel to remedy the error.” Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333,

339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

                                          –3–
        The party’s complaint on appeal must comport with the objection made at

trial. Id. (citing Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). In

determining whether a complaint on appeal does so, we look to the context of the

objection and the shared understanding of the parties at the time. Id. (citing Lankston

v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). “Generally, error must be

presented at trial with a timely and specific objection, and any objection at trial

which differs from the complaint on appeal preserves nothing for review.” Sterling

v. State, 800 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (citations omitted).

          At trial, Loredo argued the timeline referred to “facts not in evidence.” The

record reflects the following discussion prior to the timeline’s admission:

        Q.     [PROSECUTOR] . . . I’m handing you what’s been marked as
        State’s Exhibit 2. Have you seen this document before?

        A.        [COMPLAINANT] Yes.

        Q.     [PROSECUTOR] Okay. And does this document -- without
        going into specifically everything that’s on it, does it reflect, you know,
        dates and events that you testified about here today, whether on direct
        or cross-examination?

        A.        [COMPLAINANT] Yes.
        . . . . [2]

    2
      In the portion not quoted, the complainant agreed that the timeline accurately reflected various matters
depicted on the timeline, including but not limited to her date of birth, appellant’s date of birth, the general
date when appellant and complainant’s mom got married, when the family moved to Texas from California,
certain siblings’ birthdays, the timeframe when the first incident of sexual abuse occurred when appellant
caressed complainant’s vaginal area, complainant’s fourteenth and seventeenth birthdays, the approximate
year of complainant’s parents’ divorce, the date complainant reported and was interviewed by law
enforcement, and the order of certain events in relation to others, such as the occurrence of more than one
incident involving appellant’s penetration of her vagina with his finger after the first instance of sexual
abuse and both before and after she was fourteen; the occurrence of the incident in Mexico after her sisters

                                                     –4–
        Q.    [PROSECUTOR] Okay. Does everything here appear to fairly
        and accurately, you know, represent the time sequence of events and
        how you testified about them today?

        A.      [COMPLAINANT] Yes.

        Q.    [PROSECUTOR] And do you think that seeing this is something
        that might assist the jury in understanding kind of the chronology and
        flow of how things happened?
        A.      [COMPLAINANT] Yes, I think so.

        [PROSECUTOR]: At this time, the State offers State’s Exhibit 2 into
        evidence. Tendering to defense.

        THE COURT: Any objections?
        [DEFENSE COUNSEL] Yes, Your Honor. It’s basically all leading
        questions that just happened. Some of the stuff, including the issues
        with Jan, she doesn’t even remember telling her. She was – the answer
        was suggested to her by the questioner. As far as the specific acts of
        abuse, she was only able to tell that it happened sometime between
        when she was 10, 11, and older, but to put dates when that may have
        happened, I don’t think you can really do that because it’s facts not in
        evidence, Judge. So, I would say other than people’s birth dates,
        perhaps date of divorce, I don’t see that any of this is admissible
        because those are not facts that were given in evidence, and if this
        particular exhibit’s allowed to be demonstrated to the jury, it’s leading
        questions that have been answered by, Hey, read your script.

        [PROSECUTOR]: And, Your Honor, the dates -- or, the events --
        excuse me -- that do not have a specific date or month or time that were
        able to be tied to them do not have a date next to them. They’re just put
        in sequence in terms of, we know it was after this event, we know it
        happened before this and such, and everything on here was testified to
        by this witness or another witness.

        THE COURT: All right. I’ll overrule the objection.

        [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Can I make my offer of proof, Judge?

were born; and the occurrence of her report to her neighbor Jan after the first instance of sexual abuse and
before complainant left home at seventeen.
                                                   –5–
       THE COURT: Sure.
       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The way this particular timeline is done, it
       suggests that we have specific dates as to when things happened
       because it could have happened between here and here, and that wasn’t
       the testimony that we got. It’s misleading the jury and indicating that
       there’s some sort of extra veracity that wasn’t there or elicited from
       testimony even after repeatedly asking the questions, and ask that that
       not be put in front of the jury.

       THE COURT: It will be admitted. Thank you.

       In contrast to his “facts not in evidence” argument in the trial court, on appeal,

Loredo argues the timeline was inadmissible because it “contained several factual

inaccuracies”3 and was “an improper summary of evidence.” In other words,

although Loredo has consistently maintained that the timeline is inadmissible, in the

trial court, he argued the timeline is inadmissible because the timeline contained

information not yet in evidence, but on appeal, he argues the timeline is inadmissible

because it summarized information that was already there. These arguments are not

the same, despite Loredo’s attempts to equate them.

       We disagree with Loredo’s argument that at trial, he “conveyed the point that

the summary was merely a repetition of testimony and had no independent relevance

or probative value of its own,” as there is nothing in the record to support it. Because

his argument on appeal does not comport with his argument in the trial court, we

conclude Loredo failed to preserve error on his sole issue on appeal.

   3
     As to the alleged “factual inaccuracies,” Loredo did not identify below, and has not identified
on appeal, any specific inaccuracy in the timeline that is inconsistent with other evidence in the
record.
                                               –6–
      B.     Harm
      We also conclude any error in the admission of the timeline was not harmful.

      The erroneous admission of evidence generally constitutes non-constitutional

error, subject to a harm analysis that requires reversal only if the error affected the

substantial rights of the accused. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at

373. An error is reversible only when it has a substantial and injurious effect or

influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 592

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We should not overturn the conviction if we have fair

assurance from an examination of the record as a whole that the error did not

influence the jury or had but slight effect. Id. When making this determination, we

consider: (1) the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in

connection with other evidence; (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict;

(3) the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt; and (4) whether

the State emphasized the complained-of error. Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 373.

      In arguing their respective positions regarding harm, both sides cite Castillo

v. State, No. 05-12-00696-CR, 2014 WL 61035 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 8, 2014,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). In that case, the State

conceded error in the admission of a timeline but claimed it was harmless. Id. at *1.

We agreed with the State, noting that the jury heard testimony from complainant

regarding the incidents of abuse summarized on the timeline. Id. at *1–2 (stating,

                                         –7–
“[W]e cannot conclude appellant’s substantial rights were harmed by the erroneous

admission of evidence.”).4

         In this case, the State does not concede error but argues that any error was

harmless, similar to its harm argument in Castillo. We agree. Similar to Castillo,

the jury heard testimony regarding the incidents summarized on the timeline from

complainant and other witnesses. Based on the record before us, even if Loredo

preserved error and we assumed the trial court erred in admitting the timeline, we

cannot conclude Loredo’s substantial rights were harmed by the trial court’s decision

to admit the timeline into evidence. See id. Having reviewed the entire record, we

have fair assurances that any error in admitting the timeline either did not influence

the jury or had only a slight effect. See Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 373. Therefore, we

disregard any error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). We overrule Loredo’s sole issue.

                                      III. CONCLUSION
         We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                                 /Ken Molberg/
210501f.u05                                      KEN MOLBERG
210502f.u05                                      JUSTICE
210503f.u05
210561f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47

   4
       We also noted Castillo had not argued the chart was inaccurate or misleading, see 2014 WL
61035 at *2.
                                              –8–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ANTONIO B LOREDO, Appellant                  On Appeal from the 401st Judicial
                                             District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-21-00501-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. 401-82300-
                                             2021 ct. 1.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                             and Carlyle participating.

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

Judgment entered this 25th day of April, 2023.

                                       –9–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ANTONIO B LOREDO, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 401st Judicial
                                              District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-21-00502-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. 401-82300-
                                              2021 ct. 2.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Opinion delivered by Justice
                                              Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                              and Carlyle participating.

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

Judgment entered this 25th day of April, 2023.

                                       –10–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ANTONIO B LOREDO, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 401st Judicial
                                              District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-21-00503-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. 401-82300-
                                              2021 ct. 3.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Opinion delivered by Justice
                                              Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                              and Carlyle participating.

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

Judgment entered this 25th day of April, 2023.

                                       –11–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ANTONIO B LOREDO, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 401st Judicial
                                              District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-21-00561-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. 401-82300-
                                              2021 ct. 4.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Opinion delivered by Justice
                                              Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                              and Carlyle participating.

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

Judgment entered this 25th day of April, 2023.

                                       –12–