Christopher David Swofford v. State
12-14-00082-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Appellant Christopher Swofford was convicted by bench trial in Henderson County for aggravated sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, and indecency with a child by exposure.
- The offenses arose from alleged sexual abuse involving Appellant, his wife Sasha, and their children M.S. and K.S., with eventsdating to 2012 and charges following investigations.
- Venue challenged: Appellant contends the evidence did not establish Henderson County as proper venue; the court determines venue was proven through post-plea and pre-plea testimony showing Henderson County (including Brownsboro) as the location.
- A significant evidentiary dispute centered on statements by the children to a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) and, separately, on video recordings (DVDs) depicting acts and related statements by Appellant.
- The trial court admitted the children’s statements under Rule 803(4) and admitted most of the DVD evidence over objections; the judgments were later challenged and the judgment date entry corrected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue sufficiency for Henderson County | Venue shown by post-plea testimony; Brownsboro/Henderson County location evident. | Evidence before plea cannot sustain venue; improper timing undermines proof of venue. | Venue proven; first issue overruled. |
| Admissibility of M.S.'s statements to SANE under Rule 803(4) | Statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment are admissible; record shows awareness and reliance for diagnosis. | Rule 803(4) exception not shown because not hospital/clinic setting and no veracity necessity shown. | Statements admissible; second issue overruled. |
| Admissibility of K.S.'s statements to SANE under Rule 803(4) | K.S.'s statements form part of diagnostic/treatment context for psychological injury. | Same lack of hospital/clinic context and diagnostic reliance argued for K.S. | Statements admissible; third issue overruled. |
| Admissibility and scope of video recordings (DVDs) and invited-error | DVDs are relevant, probative, and corroborative; scope appropriate; not improper 404(b) or 403 issues. | Many clips are irrelevant or prejudicial; non-published portions were not properly limited; invited error applies. | DVD portions admitted; issues overruled; invited-error doctrine applied to limit relief for non-published portions. |
| Error in judgment | Judgments correctly reflect the verdicts; no modification needed. | Judgments inaccurately reflect guilty pleas/dates; must be corrected to show not guilty plea and guilty verdict on specific date. | Judgments modified to show not guilty plea and guilty finding on November 2, 2013; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Rule 803(4) applicability to statements for medical/psychological treatment context)
- Beheler v. State, 3 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (evidence of awareness of veracity needed in certain forensic interviews)
- McDonald v. State, 148 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (establishing evidentiary standards for intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire from conduct)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate authority to correct judgments when record supports remedy)
- Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (invited error/estoppel doctrine in appellate review of trial actions)
- Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (probative value generally presumed; balancing test under Rule 403)
- Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation of error requirements in trial objections)
- Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard; Rule 403/404 context for admissibility)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (probative vs. prejudicial balancing framework)
- Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (preservation and scope of appellate review of evidentiary rulings)