Christian Fuentes v. State
02-15-00356-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Complainant (Lily) went to defendant Christian Fuentes’s house with Jerry Guerrero and Jorge after taking Xanax and alcohol; she later “blacked out.”
- A video/screenshots posted from Jerry’s phone showed a man performing sexual acts on an apparently unconscious Lily; Lily reported the incident and a rape exam and toxicology (positive for Xanax) followed.
- Appellant was indicted for sexual assault; Jerry was later charged with invasive visual recording and received deferred adjudication; Jorge faced credit-card charges.
- At a pretrial Rule 412 hearing, the trial court excluded evidence of Lily’s prior sexual activity with Jerry (ruling it was not sexual behavior with the defendant) but allowed limited testimony that Lily thought sex might happen when Jerry called.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether defense could subpoena records and whether defense could bring character witnesses; court told jury both sides have equal subpoena power and that it could not answer the character-witness question; defense objected as burden-shifting.
- Defense later subpoenaed Lily’s phone records post-verdict showing calls/voicemail/internet activity during the time she claimed to be unconscious; defense sought a new trial (arguing material Brady/newly discovered evidence), which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion under Rule 412 of evidence that Lily previously had sex with Jerry while on Xanax | Such evidence was probative of consent and relevant because Jerry was implicated in the same episode | Excluded because prior sexual behavior was with Jerry, not with Appellant, so not an exception under Rule 412 and was prejudicial | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence was nonmaterial under Rule 412 and probative value not shown to outweigh prejudice; exclusion affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: lack of consent | Defense: Encounter was consensual | State: Video testimony and complainant’s account support that she was unconscious/unaware and did not consent | Court: Evidence sufficient when viewed favorably to verdict; conviction affirmed |
| Jury note responses (subpoena power and character witnesses) — burden shifting claim | Defense: Jury responses implied defendant must produce evidence; unconstitutionally shifted burden | State: Responses were correct statements of law and not comments on weight of evidence; original charge already told jury defendant need not prove innocence | Court: No reversible error; telling jury both sides have equal subpoena power did not shift burden; refusal to answer character-witness question proper |
| Motion for new trial / Brady / newly discovered evidence (Lily’s phone records) | Defense: Phone records (post-trial) show Lily used phone while allegedly unconscious; material/new and would change result; Brady violation because records were effectively unavailable | State: Jorge’s statement (that Lily used phone) was disclosed months before trial; records not newly unavailable; defendant failed to meet article 40.001 factors | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; Brady/new-trial requirements not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (determining standard for sufficiency review)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Carsner v. State, 444 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (four-factor test for newly discovered evidence/new-trial relief)
- Riley v. State, 378 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard of review for trial court’s denial of new trial)
- Bruton v. State, 428 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (interpretive guidance on evidentiary rules and exceptions)
- Robisheaux v. State, 483 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 412 exclusions)