Christopher Allen Solis v. the State of Texas
13-21-00222-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 31, 2022Background
- Christopher Allen Solis was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of R.J., a child under 14, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The sole appellate issue challenged the trial court’s designation of R.J.’s mother, C.S., as the outcry witness under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.072.
- C.S. testified that R.J., then 13, told her “daddy has been making me do inappropriate things,” and that R.J. said Solis made her do things “with my mouth and my butt.”
- Defense counsel objected that the outcry statement was vague and raised reliability concerns; the trial court overruled the objection and allowed C.S. to testify about the outcry.
- R.J. and the sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE) later testified, without objection, to detailed accounts of repeated oral sex and two instances of anal penetration beginning when R.J. was about 5–6 and continuing until age 13.
- The court held that any error in admitting C.S. as the outcry witness was harmless because the same substantive allegations were admitted elsewhere without objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly designated C.S. as the outcry witness under art. 38.072 | Solis: C.S.’s reported outcry was vague and unreliable and therefore should not have been admitted as outcry testimony | State: C.S.’s account ("mouth and butt") sufficiently described the alleged offense; any objection was properly overruled | Court: Even if designation was improper, any error was harmless because R.J. and the SANE testified to the same details without objection; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (defines outcry witness as first person 18+ who hears a statement describing the offense)
- Chapman v. State, 150 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (trial court has broad discretion to select an outcry witness)
- Zarco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for outcry-witness rulings)
- Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (improper admission of evidence is not reversible if same facts are proved by other properly admitted evidence)
- Dunn v. State, 125 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (same harmless-error principle)