Donald Ray Haynes v. State, 07-15-00369-CR

Background

Defendant Donald Ray Haynes was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled individual and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment; appeal raises sufficiency and evidentiary issues.
Complainant N.S. is an adult with multiple disabilities (IQ ~62, cerebral palsy, mental retardation) who requires daily assistance; she testified that Haynes penetrated her anus and that the act was nonconsensual.
N.S. gave a written statement to police describing an incident she dated to November 23, 2012; no forensic exam was performed due to delay in reporting.
Defense presented testimony and records attempting to show Haynes lacked chronological/physical access (truck trip logs, daycare attendance records, house occupant Montgomery’s testimony, alternate lock on door) and that Haynes had medical conditions limiting sexual function.
Defense proffered lay testimony from two caretakers (Pace and O’Neal) about a specific prior incident in which N.S. purportedly claimed a pregnancy then miscarriage; the trial court excluded that testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 608(b).
The jury convicted; on appeal the court affirmed, finding (1) the evidence was sufficient under Jackson/Brooks standards and (2) exclusion of the specific-instance testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion or preserved constitutional error.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Haynes's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove aggravated sexual assault of a disabled individual	N.S.’s testimony and prior written statement, plus investigative testimony, suffice for a rational juror to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Defense argued records and testimony created reasonable doubt about opportunity, access, and physical capability (truck logs, occupancy/locks, medical testimony)	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Exclusion of proffered testimony about N.S.’s inability to distinguish fantasy from reality (specific prior incident)	Exclusion proper under Tex. R. Evid. 608(b); evidence was specific-instance conduct barred for impeachment	Haynes argued the testimony was admissible to show N.S.’s inability to separate fantasy from reality (citing Moreno) and contended exclusion denied his right to present a defense	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; the proffered single-instance lay account was barred by Rule 608(b); constitutional complaint not preserved for review

Key Cases Cited

Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (defines hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for constitutional sufficiency review)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (clarifies sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility findings)
Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (dissent framing hypothetical conclusive videotape argument referenced in sufficiency analysis)
Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury may believe all, some, or none of testimony)
Moreno v. State, 297 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (treatment records addressing complainant’s grasp of reality found admissible to impeach)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant’s right to present testimony in face of evidentiary rule challenges)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (compulsory process and confrontation principles limiting exclusion of critical defense evidence)
Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discusses Rock and Chambers in context of Texas harmless-error analysis)
Perry v. State, 236 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (mental disturbance impeachment permissible if it tends to reflect on credibility)
Scott v. State, 162 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005) (exclusion of specific-instance evidence about mental hospitalization not an abuse where evidence didn’t show ongoing condition affecting credibility)