Carlos Omar Cordero v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 10610
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Carlos O. Cordero was convicted by a jury of four counts of indecency with a child and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
- MP reported in 2011 that she, as a child, suffered acts of sexual abuse by Cordero between 1991 and 1995.
- Trial occurred in Montgomery County; indictment covered offenses from 1991–1995 when MP was ages 9–12.
- The State introduced Denham as an outcry witness under Article 38.072 and MP testified.
- The defense challenged Denham’s testimony as hearsay and challenged its reliability; other extraneous acts were also admitted.
- The court ultimately affirmed after holding the Denham testimony harmless and sustaining other evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Denham’s outcry testimony was admissible under Article 38.072 given MP was 28 at the outcry | Cordero contends MP’s age at outcry invalidates the statute’s application | State argues the statute targets statements by a child to an adult and is applicable | Abuse of discretion; article 38.072 applies and Denham’s testimony was admissible under proper predicate |
| Whether Denham’s testimony describing extraneous acts outside Montgomery County was admissible | Cordero argues extraneous acts outside Montgomery County are impermissible hearsay | State argues 38.37 permits such acts for relevant purposes | Error admitted but harmless; testimony was cumulative and did not affect substantial rights |
| Whether preservation of error for 38.072 admission was adequate | Cordero asserts specific statutory grounds and reliability hearing were required | State maintains problem preserved by general hearsay objection and timely notice | Sufficient preservation under Long; general hearsay objection adequate to inform trial court |
| Whether MP’s age at time of outcry precludes 38.072 applicability | MP was not a child when she made the outcry | Statutory purpose protects the child’s person; age threshold focuses on outcry by child to adult | Trial court abused discretion; MP’s age at outcry rendered 38.072 inapplicable to content of outcry testimony |
| Whether cross-examination asking if MP is a liar violated evidentiary rules | Prosecutor’s question sought to have Cordero pass on another witness’ credibility | Question was argumentative but not reversible error | No reversible error; harmless given conflicting testimony and unaltered jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 800 S.W.2d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (requires predicate for 38.072; informs preservation analysis and reliability hearing)
- Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (discusses reliability and notice requirements under 38.072)
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (outcry designation standard and evidentiary review)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (treatment of hearsay objections as sufficiently specific)
- Harvey v. State, 123 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (discusses age definitions and application of 38.072 across age at time of outcry)