Court Opinion

ID: 9689544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:39:58.872824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.179475
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
A majority of this Court finds that Charles Eugene Martinez was harmed by the erroneous admission of outcry witness testimony. I disagree. Therefore, I find it necessary to conduct my own harm analysis.
Martinez was charged in a five count indictment with the felony offenses of indecency with a child younger than 17 years of age and injury to a child younger than 15 years of age. Counts I — III alleged that Martinez engaged in sexual contact with AR, a child younger than 17 years of age. Count IV alleged that Martinez engaged in sexual- contact with BF, a child younger than 17 years of age. Count V alleged that Martinez caused bodily injury to BF, a child younger than 15 years of age, by hitting BF in the face with his hand. A jury acquitted Martinez of the counts related to BF and convicted him of all three counts relating to AR. The jury assessed punishment at 10 years in prison and a fine of $5,000 for each offense. The trial court ordered the prison time served concurrently but ordered that the total fines, in the amount of $15,000.00, be paid.
On appeal to this Court, the conviction and sentence were affirmed in a memorandum opinion rendered September 15, 2004. Martinez v. State, No. 10-03-00052-CR, 2004 WL 2066760 (Tex.App.-Waco Sept. 15, 2004) (not designated for publication). The decision of this Court of Appeals was reversed on November 2, 2005. Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (2005).
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony by the complainant’s mother as a victim outcry statement and remanded this case to this Court to conduct a harm analysis. This error is not constitutional in nature and is, therefore, subject to the analysis for harm provided by Tex. R.App. P. 44.2(b). The reviewing court must decide if the admission of the complained-of testimony “had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 270 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Rule 44.2(b) requires that non-constitutional error be disregarded unless it affects “substantial rights.”
In discussing how to conduct a harm analysis, the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that
[Substantial rights are not affected by the erroneous admission of evidence “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” In assessing the likelihood that the jury’s decision was adversely affected by the error, the appellate court should consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the *295character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. The reviewing court may also consider the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments and even voir dire, if applicable. We have also recognized that whether the State emphasized the error can be a factor.
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355-356 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (footnotes omitted). See also Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 518-519 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
AR’s mother was the witness immediately preceding AR’s testimony. She testified about taking her daughter to Martinez’s home and the surrounding circumstances. She also testified about the mood and behavior of AR immediately before and then upon her return from staying overnight at Martinez’s. This testimony was introduced as background testimony and gave context to both the outcry testimony, about which Martinez complains, and the subsequent testimony given by AR without objection.
Because AR was older than 12, the outcry testimony given by AR’s mother was not admissible. AR’s mother testified about events that occurred on two different, but successive, days while AR was at Martinez’s home.
The primary testimony relating to the first incident about which Martinez complains comprises a mere eight lines of testimony. The full text of that testimony is as follows:
A. She had said that he had come in while she was sleeping. I believe that was Saturday night. And had started running his hand up her blouse. She said she started coughing to try to wake somebody or try to get him to move. And that he finally did later on get up and go out of the room. When I asked her if she knew it was him, she told me that there was a mirror that was standing there, and as he got up, she saw his reflection off of it.
The testimony regarding the other two charges, though broken up by three questions, comprised only 13 lines. That testimony, without the questions, is as follows:
A. She told me that at that point she was asked to sit on the bed. Mr. Martinez sat on the bed with her, and asked her something to the effect of, would you let a boy do this, and he put his hand underneath her blouse.
[[Image here]]
A. And then she said that he got on top of her, or forced her to get on top of him. And she said that the whole time she was wanting to get up, but she couldn’t. He was holding her down and rubbing up against her.
[[Image here]]
A. She just said that he was trying to put his hand — he said, would you let a boy do this, and he got his hand in her blouse. He said, would you let a boy do this, and he was rubbing his hand up and down her leg. And that’s when, I guess, he got her on top of him.
This testimony is not as detailed or as specific as the testimony given by the victim, AR, the very next witness at trial. AR’s testimony does not indicate any uncertainty, hesitation, or qualification about what events transpired between Martinez and AR.
To properly evaluate whether Martinez was harmed, I have considered everything in the record in light of the factors discussed in Motilla and reiterated in Haley.
The testimony of AR, which was the only other evidence regarding Martinez’s *296guilt on these three counts, was clear, free from material contradiction, and is not controverted. It is clear from the record that this witness was fully capable of giving credible testimony free of the concerns usually present in connection with the testimony of children.
The testimony given by AR’s mother is not the type testimony that would appear to the jury as more credible than AR’s testimony. Because of its summary nature and brief duration, it is unlikely that the jury placed any significance on it.
The prosecution did nothing to emphasize the inadmissible testimony. The testimony of AR’s mother was barely mentioned at all in arguments by either the State or Martinez. It was obviously immaterial to both.
After careful consideration of the entire record, I would hold that the error in admitting the outcry testimony did not affect Martinez’s substantial rights and, therefore, was harmless.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the majority reverses the judgment, I dissent.