Bryan Keith Roberts v. State
06-16-00026-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Appellant Bryan Keith Roberts was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 55 years. He appealed the admission of outcry testimony.
- The outcry witness was the victim’s father, "Rex," a sheriff’s detective experienced in child-abuse investigations. The trial court admitted Rex’s testimony under the outcry exception.
- Before Rex’s interview, the child ("John") made vague reports to two people: a friend (said he had been “molested” without specifics) and his mother (said Roberts touched him, made him uncomfortable, masturbated in his sight, and “something else,” but without details).
- After the mother called Rex, Rex questioned John one-on-one; John then described discernable details: Roberts forced John to put his mouth on Roberts’ penis, Roberts “put his thing in” John, and Roberts touched John’s private parts.
- The trial court found Rex was the first adult (other than the defendant) to whom John gave a statement that discernibly described the alleged offenses and thus permitted Rex to testify about John’s detailed statements. Roberts argued that admitting Rex’s outcry testimony was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting Rex’s outcry testimony under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.072 | Roberts: Rex was not the first adult to receive a discernable outcry and admission therefore violated the single-outcry-per-event rule | State: Earlier reports to others were vague and non-descriptive; Rex was the first to receive a statement with discernable details sufficient to qualify as an outcry | Court: No abuse of discretion — evidence showed Rex was the first to receive discernable details, so his testimony was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (outcry must discernibly describe the alleged offense)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (only one outcry witness per event; multiple outcry witnesses allowed only if describing different events)
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (appellate review considers the record before the trial court at the time of its ruling)
- Eldred v. State, 431 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (application of outcry exception and review standard)