Court Opinion

ID: 9389716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 06:07:48.586415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.104371
License: Public Domain

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 19, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00420-CR

                     JESSE MARK LANPHERE, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 380-80833-2019

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Garcia, and Kennedy
                           Opinion by Justice Kennedy
      Jesse Mark Lanphere appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a

child. In a single issue, appellant asserts the trial court erred in allowing an

unqualified witness to testify as an expert on the concepts of “script” and “episodic”

memory. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because all issues are settled in law,

we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

                                   BACKGROUND

      Appellant was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse of a child

and aggravated sexual assault of a child. The State later abandoned the charge of
aggravated sexual assault of a child, and appellant pleaded not guilty to the

remaining charge.

        The complainant, A.L., is the biological daughter of appellant. At the time of

trial, she was seventeen years old. A.L. testified that appellant began to sexually

abuse her when she was approximately ten years old. A.L. described the assaults in

general terms, stating the assaults usually happened during the daytime, in her room,

when no one else was around. A.L. was able to provide some sensory detail but

when it came to specific details, A.L. testified that “my memories kind of just blur

together because it would be the same situation, so there would not really be a way

to differ them from each other.” The few instances A.L. specifically described were

violent encounters with appellant chasing or grabbing her and forcing her to engage

in sexual conduct.

        Lisa Martinez, the Director of Case Management and Forensic Services at the

Collin County Children’s Advocacy Center, conducted the second of two interviews

of A.L. At trial, she testified about the interview and about the formation of “script”

and “episodic” memories in the context of children’s abilities to recall and relate

details of trauma after the fact.1 It is her testimony concerning memory recall that

is the subject of appellant’s complaint on appeal. With respect to the differentiation

between script and episodic memories, Martinez indicated that script memory is

    1
      Martinez made it clear that she was not there to say whether or not the abuse occurred, and she was
not testifying regarding the veracity of any witness.
                                                  –2–
“when you are retrieving a memory of something you do all the time,” and is

commonly expressed in generalizations such as “usually” and “typically.”

“[E]pisodic is one episode specifically versus script is something you usually do.”

Martinez related these concepts to children’s description of abuse and stated that

children who are chronically abused often lose details of the abuse to script memory

due to sheer repetition of events. She further stated that, in the context of a forensic

interview, a child’s use of certain verbs, such as usually, are indicators of script

memory.

      Appellant’s defensive theory was that A.L.’s mother coached, or at least

encouraged, A.L. to fabricate allegations of abuse by appellant. In support thereof,

the defense put on evidence that A.L.’s mother was vindictive toward appellant,

attempted to alienate his children from him, and routinely threatened to accuse him

of abuse and rape. Appellant claimed A.L.’s inability to recall details of the alleged

abuse supports his defensive theory.

      The jurors unanimously found appellant guilty of the offense of continuous

sexual abuse of a child as charged in the indictment and assessed punishment at 25

years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division. This appeal followed.

                                     DISCUSSION

      Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Martinez

to testify concerning children’s ability to describe in detail repeated acts of abuse

                                          –3–
because she was not qualified to testify about children’s memories and her opinions

were untested and unsupported.        According to appellant, Martinez presented

virtually no evidence of training or education on the subject of memory, did not

establish that the theories underlying her testimony were peer reviewed or accepted

in the field, and did not show that her testimony properly used or applied those

theories in any reliable way. The State responds asserting Martinez is qualified to

testify about children’s memories and that appellant failed to preserve any complaint

about the reliability of her opinions. We agree with the State.

      We review a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of

discretion. Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The

trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules

and principles or acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d

372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

      An expert witness may offer an opinion if he is qualified to do so by his

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and if scientific, technical, or

other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence

or determining a fact in issue. TEX. R. EVID. 702. Three requirements must be met

before expert testimony can be admitted: “(1) the witness qualifies as an expert by

reason of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) the subject

matter of the testimony is an appropriate one for expert testimony; and (3) admitting

the expert testimony will actually assist the fact-finder in deciding the case.” Vela

                                         –4–
v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). These conditions are

commonly referred to as (1) qualification, (2) reliability, and (3) relevance. Rhomer

v. State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). The three requirements raise

distinct questions and issues, and an objection based on one does not preserve error

as to another. Whittley v. State, No. 05-21-00534-CR, 2022 WL 3645589, at *5

(Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 24, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (citing Shaw v. State, 329 S.W.3d 645, 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d)), see also Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164, 182 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism’d) (“[o]bjections based simply on Rule 702 and

Daubert alone” are general objections that do not preserve error).

      Appellant objected to Martinez’s testimony concerning memories asserting

she lacked the requisite qualification to speak as an expert on the topic. While

appellant generally referenced Rule 702 in connection with Martinez’s testimony in

the trial court, such reference did not preserve a specific complaint for review. See

Gregory, 56 S.W.3d at 182. Appellant did not object to the reliability of Martinez’s

testimony in the trial court. His challenge to the reliability of her testimony is,

therefore, not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Accordingly, we

limit our review to appellant’s complaint regarding Martinez’s qualification to opine

on the issue of “script” versus “episodic” memory.

      No precise formula exists for determining whether a particular witness is

qualified to testify as an expert. Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839, 852, n.10 (Tex.

                                        –5–
Crim. App. 1991). The specialized knowledge that qualifies a witness to offer an

expert opinion may be derived from specialized education, practical experience, a

study of technical works or a combination of these things. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d

18, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An expert witness is not required to always

demonstrate formal training, and the expert may instead gain expertise in a particular

field solely through his or her own personal experience or research. Morris v. State,

361 S.W.3d 649, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Because the possible spectrum of

education, skill, and training is so wide, the trial court has great discretion in

determining whether a witness possesses sufficient qualification to assist the jury as

an expert on a specific topic in a particular case. Rodgers, 205 S.W.3d at 527–28

(citing Joiner v. State, 825 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). In addition

to having sufficient background in a particular field, the trial court must determine

that the witness’s background is tailored to the specific area of expertise in which

the expert desires to testify. Vela, 209 S.W.3d at 133.

      We may consider several criteria in assessing whether a trial court has clearly

abused its discretion in ruling on an expert’s qualifications. First, is the field of

expertise complex? Rodgers, 205 S.W.3d at 528. The degree of education, training,

or experience that a witness should have before he can qualify as an expert is directly

related to the complexity of the field about which he proposes to testify. Id. If the

expert evidence is close to the jury’s common understanding, the witness’s

qualifications are less important than when the evidence is well outside the jury’s

                                         –6–
own experience. Id. Second, how conclusive is the expert’s opinion? Id. The more

conclusive the expert’s opinion, the more important is his degree of expertise. Id.

Testimony that a given profile occurred one time in 2.578 sextillion, a number larger

than the number of known stars in the universe, requires a much higher degree of

scientific expertise than testimony that the defendant’s tennis shoe would have made

the bloody shoe print found on a piece of paper in the victim’s apartment. Id. And

third, how central is the area of expertise to the resolution of the case? Id. The more

dispositive it is of the disputed issues, the more important the expert’s qualifications

are. Id. If DNA is the only thing tying the defendant to the crime, the reliability of

the expertise and the witness’s qualifications to give his opinion are more crucial

than if eyewitnesses and a confession also connect the defendant to the crime. Id.

      The record establishes Martinez has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from

the University of Houston, is trained (1) in interviewing and questioning children,

(2) on linguistics, and (3) on the process of disclosure. She has performed more than

3,000 forensic interviews since 2004. Her forensic interviews are peer-reviewed

regionally on a quarterly basis and internally on a weekly basis. She keeps up to

date with current trends and research that may be relevant to forensic interviewing.

We conclude Martinez has a sufficient background in the field of memory recall and

her background is tailored to discuss “script” versus “episodic” memory. See State

v. Ruiz, No. 49719-1-II, 2018 WL 4091733, at *7 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018)

                                          –7–
(witness’s training, experience, professional observations, and knowledge, qualified

her to testify about child memory and recantation).

      With respect to the criteria we consider in assessing whether the trial court

clearly abused its discretion in determining the qualification of an expert witness,

we note that Martinez’s testimony was not highly technical or complex. See, e.g.,

Roberts v. State, No. 08-19-00029-CR, 2019 WL 7046756, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—El

Paso Dec. 23, 2019, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (expert testimony on

behavior of sexually abused children was not highly technical or complex).

Moreover, Martinez’s testimony, while related to the lack of detail in A.L.’s

testimony regarding the abuse, generally related to a cognitive trait and was not

conclusive or dispositive. See, e.g., Maillart v. State, No. 08-20-00232-CR, 2022

WL 970334, at *11 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 31, 2022, pet. ref’d) (not designated

for publication) (testimony about behavioral traits of trauma victims was not

conclusive or dispositive).

      We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling

appellant’s objection to the qualification of Martinez and permitting Martinez to

testify regarding “script” and “episodic” memories. Accordingly, we overrule

appellant’s sole issue.

                                        –8–
                                  CONCLUSION

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                          /Nancy Kennedy/
                                          NANCY KENNEDY
                                          JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47

220420F.U05

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

JESSE MARK LANPHERE,                          On Appeal from the 380th Judicial
Appellant                                     District Court, Collin County, Texas
                                              Trial Court Cause No. 380-80833-
No. 05-22-00420-CR          V.                2019.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Kennedy. Justices Pedersen, III and
                                              Garcia participating.

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

Judgment entered this 19th day of April, 2023.

                                       –10–