Charles Michael Walker v. State
12-14-00104-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2015Background
- Victim A.C. lived with appellant Charles Michael Walker after her mother married him; she testified Walker began fondling her in sixth grade and later engaged in multiple sexual acts through age 18.
- A.C. delayed disclosure for years; she reported the abuse to a boyfriend who, as a police officer, reported it and initiated prosecution in 2011.
- Walker denied the allegations and denied being controlling; the State called Meredith Bilbo to rebut that denial—Bilbo testified Walker coerced her into an abortion during an extramarital relationship.
- The jury found Walker guilty on two counts of indecency with a child and assessed 10 years imprisonment, suspended with community supervision and 180 days county jail as a condition.
- Walker appealed, raising (1) that the trial court erred by allowing Lauren Moore, a licensed professional counselor intern awaiting certification, to testify as an expert on sexually abused children, and (2) that Bilbo’s abortion testimony was unduly prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Qualification of expert (Moore) | State: Moore was qualified by training, experience, and hours; licensure certificate pending is not required. | Walker: Moore was only an intern, not a licensed professional counselor, so unqualified to give expert testimony on child-sex-abuse behavior. | Court affirmed: No abuse of discretion; Moore met qualifications and licensure receipt was the only thing outstanding. |
| 2. Admission of Bilbo's abortion testimony (Rule 403) | State: Evidence rebutted Walker’s denial of being controlling and was probative of credibility. | Walker: The abortion testimony had negligible probative value and highly prejudicial, inflammatory effect; should have been excluded under Rule 403. | Court affirmed: Error not preserved—trial counsel’s objection lacked the specificity required to trigger a Rule 403 balancing; appellate review denied on preservation grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard of review for admission of expert testimony)
- Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (criteria for reliability of nonscientific expert testimony)
- Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (objection under Rule 403 required to preserve error)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for weighing probative value against prejudicial effect under Rule 403)
- Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation of appellate complaints and conformity with trial objections)