Court Opinion

ID: 9401504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 14:11:34.402454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.171644
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas

                                   CONCURRING OPINION
                                         No. 04-22-00161-CR

                                       Brandon Joshua VIGIL,
                                             Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                    From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. 20-06-13648-CR
                           Honorable Daniel J. Kindred, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Concurring Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice, joined by Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 7, 2023

           In Vigil’s third issue, he complains that the trial court violated Texas Rule of Evidence

705(b) by denying him the right to take the State’s witness, Deputy Reyes, on voir dire. He cites

two opinions from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and applies them to the facts of this case.

The court’s opinion does not cite Rule 705(b); instead, it concludes Vigil’s third issue is

inadequately briefed. Because I do not agree with that reasoning, I respectfully concur in the

court’s judgment as to part II. D.
Concurring Opinion                                                                      04-22-00161-CR

        In response to the court’s conclusion that Vigil’s third argument was inadequately briefed,

I note that in his appellate brief, Vigil relies on Texas Rule of Evidence 705 to argue that the trial

court was required to allow his trial counsel to take Deputy Reyes on voir dire. He supports that

argument by citing two opinions from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which he applies to

the facts of this case with record citations. He then argues harmful error and cites another opinion

from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to support his harmful-error argument. The State

understood Vigil’s argument—it did not argue brief waiver. Because Vigil’s brief “contain[s] a

clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and

to the record,” I believe Vigil’s brief on this point complies with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.1(i). For that reason, I cannot join in the court’s brief-waiver conclusion.

        However, I also cannot agree with Vigil’s argument that the trial court’s denial of his

request to take Deputy Reyes on voir dire constituted harmful error. Rule 705(b) provides:

        Before an expert states an opinion or discloses the underlying facts or data, an
        adverse party in a civil case may—or in a criminal case must—be permitted to
        examine the expert about the underlying facts or data. This examination must take
        place outside the jury’s hearing.

TEX. R. EVID. 705(b). Assuming that Deputy Reyes was testifying as an expert witness—a point

the State does not concede—we must determine whether the error was “so harmful as to require a

reversal.” Goss v. State, 826 S.W.2d 162, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Because the error is not

constitutional, we will only reverse if it affected Vigil’s substantial rights; otherwise, the error

must be disregarded. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a). In making this determination,

we consider the entire record to decide whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect on

the verdict of guilt. Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Where the

reviewing court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect,

                                                  -2-
Concurring Opinion                                                                    04-22-00161-CR

the conviction will stand. Id.; McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 578–79 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005).

         On direct examination, Deputy Reyes described his investigation of B.V.’s allegations.

Vigil sought to take Deputy Reyes on voir dire after he described B.V.’s forensic interview:

         STATE:        And was that your investigation? Is that what was revealed in your
                       investigation?

         REYES:        Yes, everything that she said was followed by or corroborated by
                       [B.V.’s brothers], I guess, as accurately as I could have.

         STATE:        And did she say that the sexual abuse occurred that day or something
                       at a different time?

         REYES:        No, it was a year prior and the Houston area was the most recent that
                       she stated happened, which was a trip with her father and her two
                       brothers, which the two brothers did say that they were in fact, in
                       Houston with her at the time.

         STATE:        I’m sorry?

         REYES:        They were in Houston at the same time.

         STATE:        And so after you got that information, why did you not do a sexual
                       assault nurse examination or refer them or refer [B.V.] to a SANE
                       exam?

         REYES:        I didn’t find it necessary after a year to put her through an invasive
                       procedure like that.

         STATE:        What do you normally look for in those examinations?

         REYES:        It’s usually physical trauma or - -

         STATE:        Is there a time limit for an accurate SANE?

         REYES:        Typically, it’s 96 hours or less.

         STATE:        And so we are talking about an event that occurred at least a year?

         VIGIL:        Can I take the witness on voir dire?

         COURT:        What for?

                                                 -3-
Concurring Opinion                                                                      04-22-00161-CR

        VIGIL:          Well, about his expertise in what he’s testifying about.

        STATE:          Your Honor, I would say this is just general information known by
                        law enforcement in his training. I’m not asking him to tell me what
                        a nurse would do. He doesn’t know.

        COURT:          Not at this time. I mean, you’ll have cross examination with him so
                        I’m going to deny at this time.

        On appeal, Vigil argues this error was harmful because he “did not have the ‘underlying

facts or data’ of the complained of expert’s testimony and the expert provided damaging and

inadmissible testimony in the presence of the jury that could have been discovered and objected to

outside their presence during a Rule 705 hearing.” But in the trial court, he did not make an offer

of proof or otherwise demonstrate what “damaging and inadmissible testimony” Deputy Reyes

provided or what “underlying facts or data” Detective Reyes testified to that Vigil was unaware

of. See Jenkins v. State, 912 S.W.2d 793, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (concluding “any error in

the trial court’s noncompliance with Rule 705(b) was harmless because appellant knew the

‘underlying facts or data’ of [the expert’s] testimony”); see also TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(2). In these

limited circumstances, I cannot conclude that the denial of Vigil’s request to take Officer Reyes

on voir dire affected his substantial rights. See, e.g., Trevino v. State, No. 04-12-00840-CR, 2014

WL 3518098, *2–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 16, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication).

        For this distinct reason, I agree with the court’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment

in all respects.

                                                    Beth Watkins, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                  -4-