Campos, Javier Noel, PD-0056-15

Background

Appellant Javier Noel Campos was tried jointly on three indictments charging aggravated sexual assault of a child for multiple acts against the same complainant; a jury convicted on all three counts and assessed 68 years for each, with one sentence ordered to run consecutively.
Allegations arose from conduct in 2005; complainant made an outcry in 2011 and gave a forensic interview; no physical corroboration was introduced and some early denials and normal medical exams existed in the record.
Prosecution introduced testimony from (1) the complainant, (2) a forensic interviewer (outcry witness), and (3) the complainant’s aunt who reported seeing deleted text messages allegedly from Campos; defense called neighbors who viewed Campos as a father figure and Campos testified denying the allegations.
Trial incidents contested on appeal included: opening‑statement reference to an earlier stalking report, outcry testimony exceeding statutory notice, expert testimony on consistency/truthfulness, admission of hearsay/deleted text‑message content, improper impeachment by prior convictions, and alleged burden‑shifting and accumulation of sentences.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed; Campos petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals raising 13 issues challenging evidentiary rulings, jury argument, impeachment, and cumulation of sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Campos)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	The complainant’s testimony and the outcry interview suffice to prove elements of aggravated sexual assault of a child	Testimony was unreliable, delayed, conflicted with earlier denials, and lacked physical or eyewitness corroboration	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, victim testimony and outcry sufficed (Jackson standard)
Opening statement reference to extraneous stalking	The reference was proper background to show defendant’s fixation and relationship with the child under art. 38.37 and trial notice	The reference introduced an unadjudicated extraneous offense that prejudiced the defense and warranted mistrial	Denied mistrial — court found the evidence admissible as relevant extraneous‑acts evidence and opening may preview admissible proof
Outcry witness scope (art. 38.072)	Outcry summary provided adequate notice; testimony described the offense and surrounding circumstances	Testimony exceeded the written outcry summary and thus was inadmissible hearsay beyond scope	No reversible error — appellate court held the challenged statement was contextual and defendant failed to preserve broader objections
Expert testimony on consistency/truthfulness	Forensic interviewer was qualified by training/experience to testify that the child’s responses were consistent with sexual abuse	Testimony was speculative, outside expert’s qualifications, and amounted to an impermissible credibility opinion	No abuse of discretion — court found qualifications and experience sufficient for permitted expert opinion about consistency, not direct truthfulness finding
Hearsay: testimony about deleted text messages and third‑party statements	Text messages were authenticated circumstantially and were admissions by party opponent; aunt’s testimony about conversation was admissible background	Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and lacked authentication (phone/messages not preserved)	No abuse of discretion — court held authentication by witness with knowledge supported admission; statements were party admissions or permissible background/context
Impeachment with prior convictions; tacking and remoteness	State may impeach credibility under Rule 609 where probative value outweighs prejudice; intervening convictions can remove remoteness	Some prior convictions were remote or not involving moral turpitude; Theus factors require balancing; trial court erred and should have excluded some convictions	Not reversible — appellate court applied Theus balancing, found most convictions admissible (or harmless if error) given centrality of appellant’s testimony
Prosecutor's closing argument (alleged burden shift)	Comment asked whether defense offered any evidence to explain motive to fabricate — a permissible reference to record and failure to produce evidence	Comment impermissibly shifted burden of proof to defendant	Overruled — court viewed the remark as a permissible comment on absence of defense evidence, not a direct burden shift
Cumulation of sentences	Trial court acted within statutory discretion under Penal Code §3.03 to cumulate where permitted; cumulation does not increase statutory maximums or implicate Apprendi	Cumulation violated right to jury sentencing determination and Apprendi	Affirmed — court held cumulation is a normative discretionary judge function authorized by statute and does not raise Apprendi Sixth Amendment concerns

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review that evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts that increase statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury; Court of Criminal Appeals distinguished cumulation as discretionary judge function)
Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court has statutory discretion to cumulate sentences; cumulation does not implicate Apprendi)
Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (factors to balance probative value vs. prejudicial effect of prior‑conviction impeachment)
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standards for authentication sufficient for a jury to find proffered evidence authentic)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (framework for admissibility of other‑acts evidence and voir dire/contextual notice)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court's gatekeeping role for expert methodology and reliability)