Anthony Wayne Johnson v. State, 12-16-00218-CR

Background

Appellant Anthony Wayne Johnson was indicted (re‑indicted June 2016) for continuous sexual abuse of a child; jury convicted him and sentenced him to life.
Victim (about 10 at trial) testified Appellant repeatedly penetrated or contacted the victim’s anus with his genitals beginning at age four; forensic interviews and a nurse’s exam largely corroborated sexual allegations though physical findings were non‑specific.
Defense sought to cross‑examine the victim about (1) a prior sexual act by another child involving manual contact of the victim’s anus and (2) an alleged false accusation by the victim against his foster mother (photograph allegation).
Trial court excluded questioning about the prior sexual act under relevance/Rule 412 analysis and excluded the foster‑mother allegation as impermissible impeachment under Rule 608(b)/403.
Defense also moved for a continuance to allow an expert to review MHMR/CPS and school psychiatric records; the court denied the continuance, and defense did not call the expert or seek additional time during trial.
On appeal the court reviewed admissibility rulings for abuse of discretion and required a showing of actual harm for reversal on denial of continuance; it affirmed the conviction on all issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
1. Excluding questioning about prior sexual act by another child	Evidence irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 412; exclusion within trial court discretion	Evidence was an alternate source of victim’s sexual knowledge and thus admissible under Rule 412(b)(2)(E) and Confrontation Clause	Affirmed: prior act did not closely resemble charged conduct; not relevant to explain victim’s sexual knowledge, so exclusion proper
2. Confrontation Clause claim tied to same prior act	Rule 412 governs; no constitutional override without relevancy	Sixth Amendment required admission to attack credibility/knowledge	Affirmed: constitutional right does not require admission of irrelevant evidence; court may limit cross‑examination
3. Excluding testimony about victim’s alleged false accusation against foster mother	Evidence would confuse jury and was barred as specific‑instance impeachment under Rule 608(b)	Evidence showed victim’s propensity to fabricate and was therefore critical to credibility	Affirmed: prior allegation offered only to attack truthfulness (propensity) and was inadmissible; no other proper purpose shown
4. Denial of continuance to allow expert review of records	Trial court acted within discretion; defendant failed to show actual harm or identify expert/evidence	Denial prevented presentation of critical expert testimony impeaching victim	Affirmed: defendant did not identify expert, proffer testimony, or show how denial caused actual harm

Key Cases Cited

Weathered v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard of review for admissibility rulings)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate scope of review for trial rulings)
Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (rulings sustained if supported under any applicable theory)
Hale v. State, 140 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (Rule 412(b)(2)(E) and alternate source of sexual knowledge standard)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (limits on impeachment with prior false complaints and scope of cross‑examination)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (relevancy requirement for admission of evidence)
Pulizzano v. State, 155 Wis.2d 633 (Wis. 1990) (standard for showing prior acts closely resemble charged conduct as alternative source)
Billodeau v. State, 277 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (admission of past false accusations when offered for non‑propensity purpose)
Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discretion on continuance motions)
Gonzalez v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (requirement to show actual harm from denial of continuance)