Bays, Michael Jay
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 714
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Bays was charged with indecency with a child by contact arising from an incident with Anne, a six-year-old, who was in Bays’s household with relatives Emily and Charlotte.
- Anne’s interview was conducted on videotape by a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigator (outcry witness) and offered at trial.
- The trial court admitted the entire 30-minute videotape over Bays’s hearsay objection; no live outcry-witness testimony regarding Anne’s statements was presented.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the outcry statute does not contemplate admission of videotaped outcry statements.
- This Court holds that Article 38.072’s outcry exception is limited to live testimony by the designated outcry witness, so Anne’s videotaped statement does not qualify under the statute.
- The video statute, Article 38.071, provides a more specific framework for admissibility of child-victim videotaped statements, which was not met here since the child was available to testify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the outcry statute allows videotaped outcry statements. | Bays: outcry statements must be conveyed through the outcry witness by testimony. | State: the statute’s language doesn’t expressly require live testimony and could admit media. | No; outcry is limited to live witness testimony. |
| Whether the video statute governs admissibility over the outcry statute. | Bays: video interviews should be permitted under the outcry provision. | State: the video statute governs when the child is unavailable and interviewer is neutral/qualified. | Yes; video statute governs; videotaped statements not admissible here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (outcry witness testifying about child’s statements)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (outcry statute described as testifying about statements)
- Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (outcry limitation; statements conveyed through witness)
- Dunn v. State, 125 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (video testimony not admitted under outcry statute)
- Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Constitutional concerns with video interviews under statutory schemes)