Bryant v. State
340 S.W.3d 1
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Bryant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.
- The victim, K.G., was 13 years old during the events; Bryant and his cousin interacted with her via telephone before the offense.
- K.G. initially misrepresented her age; Bryant believed she was older and maintained telephone contact over about 50 calls.
- Bryant and his cousin arrived at the house; Bryant allegedly touched K.G. in a sexual manner in a garage and inside the house.
- Bryant offered alibi witnesses (roommate and coworker) whose testimony about the night conflicted with a calendar-based alibi; the State elicited details from a police investigator regarding the alibi.
- The State argued grooming evidence and investigator conclusions during trial, and Bryant challenged several aspects on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grooming testimony admissibility | Bryant contends investigator lacked qualifications for grooming testimony | State argues grooming is within investigator’s experience | No abuse of discretion; grooming testimony admissible |
| Investigator’s conclusion about occurrence | Bryant argues testimony usurped jury’s fact-finding | State says testimony explains investigation background | Testimony about conclusion properly admitted; not a direct assertion of guilt by expert opinion |
| Bryant’s failure to contact police testimony | Testimony about Bryant not contacting investigator violated Fifth Amendment | No preserved error; alternative waiver evidenced by prior non-contact | Issue preserved despite waiver; objection not waived on these grounds |
| Motion for mistrial based on closing argument | Prosecutor suggested Bryant’s prior offenses; request for mistrial | Court sustained objection and gave admonition; strong evidence supports conviction | Insufficient to require mistrial; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for review of expert testimony qualifications)
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (extrinsic evidence admissibility of expert testimony)
- Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (three criteria for abuse of discretion in expert qualification rulings)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (separate evaluation of expert qualifications from reliability/relevance)
- Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (limits on expert testimony about truthfulness; permissible background)