13-24-00129-CR
Tex. App.Aug 7, 2025Background
- David Torres was convicted in a Texas district court for continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, specifically involving the child E.M.
- The conviction arose from acts committed between September 2015 and February 2016, while Torres was the significant other of E.M.'s grandmother.
- At trial, the jury found Torres guilty of one count after hearing evidence about his relationship to and abuse of E.M.; other counts were dismissed.
- During the punishment phase, the State asked E.M. what sentence she would like; she replied, “Forty-five years.”
- Defense counsel objected to the complainant's sentencing recommendation, but the trial court overruled the objection. Torres was sentenced to fifty years in prison.
- On appeal, Torres argued that admitting E.M.'s sentencing recommendation was error and prejudiced the jury's sentencing discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim's sentencing recommendation | Torres: It was error to permit E.M.'s sentencing opinion, which prejudiced the jury. | State: Victim-impact testimony from the named victim is permissible and relevant to sentencing. | Admitting the testimony was not error; the complainant’s opinion was relevant and permissible. |
| Harmfulness of potential error | Torres: The victim’s sentencing recommendation had a substantial influence on the jury’s sentence. | State: Any alleged error was harmless; the jury independently determined sentence based on the totality of evidence. | Any error was harmless; the record does not show a substantial effect on the jury's verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion is the standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (abuse of discretion occurs only when ruling lies outside zone of reasonable disagreement)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (test for harmless non-constitutional error: substantial and injurious effect)
- Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (non-constitutional error is harmless if it had only slight effect)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (relevance standard for admitting evidence)