Chance Tyler Biggers v. State, 10-16-00064-CR

Background

Appellant Chance Biggers was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 60 years' confinement and a $10,000 fine.
The victim, A.R., lived in a motel room with her mother Evelyn Smith, Appellant, and siblings; she reported that Appellant performed sexual acts on her on March 15, 2015.
Medical examiners documented genital redness, abrasions, and bruising consistent with A.R.’s disclosures; DNA testing could not exclude Appellant from DNA on A.R.’s panties and genital area.
The State gave an Article 38.072 outcry notice naming Evelyn as the outcry witness but filed it fewer than 14 days before trial and described statements as occurring at the motel (with some later statements at the hospital).
Defense sought to introduce prior outcry statements by A.R. about abuse by her biological father and contested admission of prior-offense testimony by Appellant’s biological daughter (N.B.); the trial court excluded the prior outcry evidence and admitted N.B.’s testimony after an Article 38.37 hearing.
The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed, addressing timeliness and sufficiency of the Article 38.072 notice, Rule 412 exclusion of past sexual-behavior evidence, and admissibility of extraneous-offense testimony under Article 38.37 and Rule 403.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Timeliness of Article 38.072 outcry notice	State: notice identified witness and summary (filed Jan 29) — admission proper despite timing	Biggers: notice was untimely (trial Feb 8) and prejudicial	Court: late notice did not surprise or prejudice Biggers; any error harmless; admission affirmed
2. Sufficiency/scope of Article 38.072 notice	State: summary reasonably informed defendant of essential facts	Biggers: notice localized outcry to motel though some statements occurred at hospital; sought to limit testimony	Court: notice adequately described essential facts and scope; no surprise; admission affirmed
3. Exclusion of prior outcry against biological father (Rule 412)	Biggers: prior outcry relevant to bias/motive and confrontation; needed to present defense	State: Rule 412 bars past sexual-behavior evidence absent high probative value; prior outcry not shown false or sufficiently probative	Court: probative value did not outweigh unfair prejudice; defendant could present defensive theory and cross-examine; exclusion upheld
4. Admission of extraneous-offense testimony by N.B. (Art. 38.37 / Rule 403)	Biggers: prior allegations unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded under Rule 403	State: Article 38.37 permits prior-child-sexual-offense evidence; hearing showed evidence likely to support finding beyond reasonable doubt; probative and needed	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion — N.B.’s unsophisticated testimony was probative, not unfairly prejudicial; admission affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Owens v. State, 381 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (standard of review for outcry witness admission)
Zarco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (notice requirement harm analysis for Article 38.072)
Gabriel v. State, 973 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998) (purpose of 38.072 notice to prevent surprise)
Davidson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (what constitutes sufficient outcry description)
Robisheaux v. State, 483 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (Rule 412 balancing and confrontation rights discussion)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (limits on cross-examination and confrontation clause scope)
Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (prior allegation unproven does not establish falsity)
Gonzales v. State, 477 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015) (child’s testimony alone can support conviction for aggravated sexual assault)
Alvarez v. State, 491 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (application of Article 38.37 and Rule 403 in prior-child-offense evidence)
Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)