Carlos Mireles v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 3730
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant convicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (his daughter) with life sentence.
- State admitted two prior felony convictions (1998, 1999) to impeach; 1999 conviction occurred during parole for 1998 offense.
- Underlying aggravated sexual assault trial began March 2012; convictions from the prior offenses are more than ten years old but linked by intervening conviction.
- Two outcry witnesses (school counselor Jessica and mother Patricia) testified about statements by the complainant under Article 38.072.
- Appellant removed a Global Positioning Device (GPD) as a condition of bond; defense asserted the court should allow fuller explanation of removal; the record shows appellant testified he cut off the monitor to pursue a plea.
- Appellant argues for cross-examination about the complainant’s MySpace page, but the brief is inadequate and the issue is not preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior convictions under Rule 609(a) | State argues taint not remote due to intervening conviction and weight under Theus. | Mireles argues taint remains and impeachment value is low given time gap and similarity; discretion abused. | No reversible abuse; three of five Theus factors favor admissibility. |
| Admission of outcry witnesses under article 38.072 | Outcry witnesses allowed; statements describe acts and are event-specific. | Rely on limitations of outcry; contention is properly evaluated. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; witnesses admissible. |
| Testimony about removal of the Global Positioning Device | Evidence needed to explain removal as relevant to conduct. | Record shows appellant testified consistent with defense; no error. | No error in limiting testimony; record supports denial of broader explanation. |
| Cross-examination about complainant's MySpace page | Right to cross-examine relevant inconsistencies. | No preservation or authority briefed; issue inadequately briefed. | Issue inadequately briefed and not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (non-exclusive factors to weigh admissibility of prior convictions under Rule 609(a))
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (impeachment by prior felony convictions; abuse of discretion standard)
- Morris v. State, 67 S.W.3d 257 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (remote convictions admissible where intervening conduct removes remoteness taint)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (outcry witness rule allows multiple witnesses testifying about different events)
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (outcry testimony must describe the offense in discernible way)
- Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (outcry witness concept; event-specific testimony)