Court Opinion

ID: 9440259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 08:08:17.151793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:17.882290
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-23-00137-CV

                         IN THE MATTER OF M.L.C., A CHILD

                       On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                                   Randall County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 7388J, Honorable James W. Anderson, Presiding

                                      July 31, 2023
                              CONCURRING OPINION
                  Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       I concur in the opinion and judgment of the majority but write separately to further

explain my reason for doing so. It pertains to the recantation. No doubt, convictions may

be based on recanted testimony. See, e.g., Hughes v. State, No. 07-22-00298-CR, 2023

Tex. App. LEXIS 3848, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 6, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (observing that “a criminal conviction, which requires proof

beyond a reasonable doubt, may rest on hearsay despite the lack of the complainant’s

testimony or even the complainant’s recantation”); Jackson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 626,

631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (same). Yet, authority assigns

weight to the prosecutor’s view about the need for additional evidence, such as that
corroborating the initial accusation of guilt. See, e.g., In re E.B., No. 12-22-00162-CV,

2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8508, at *12–13 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 17, 2022, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication); Collins v. State, 516 S.W.3d 504, 521 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2017, pet. ref’d).

       We observe, here, the State posited that, at the time of the recantation, it was

unaware of the “extreme” and “relentless” pressure the family put on the original

complaining witness to recant her accusation. The record also supports the trial court’s

finding that, at the time of the recantation, the State did not have access to the

complaining witness’s counselor’s records and testimony, which could have impacted the

State’s decision to move forward. So, while recanted accusations may be enough for the

State to continue the prosecution, recantation certainly places the credibility of a youthful

accuser in jeopardy. And, without indication that, at the time, other evidence corroborated

her initial accusation or illustrated the reason for her recanting, a trial court could

legitimately reject the proposition that the “case could reasonably have been dealt with

when [appellant] was still a juvenile.” Moore v. State, 532 S.W.3d 400, 405 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2017) (op. on reh’g). Yet, I cannot but wonder whether the State having investigated

a bit more and continued appellant’s juvenile adjudication would have prevented a

subsequent (and alleged) assault on an even younger sibling.

                                                         Brian Quinn
                                                         Chief Justice

                                             2