Edwin Alvarez v. State
491 S.W.3d 362
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Edwin Alvarez, a family friend, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14‑year‑old girl (Cathy); jury sentenced him to 20 years. Alvarez had previously been tried on the same charge (hung jury).
- After Alvarez’s first trial, Texas enacted Senate Bill 12 (effective Sept. 1, 2013), codified as Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37, permitting evidence of the defendant’s sexual assaults of other children in child‑sex‑abuse prosecutions.
- The State sought to admit testimony from two of Alvarez’s girlfriend’s nieces, who testified that Alvarez sexually assaulted them when they were 11–13. The trial court held the Article 38.37 hearing required by the statute and admitted the nieces’ testimony.
- Alvarez objected at the hearing and at trial, arguing generally that Article 38.37 was unconstitutional (raising ex post facto) and that the nieces’ testimony should be excluded under Tex. R. Evid. 403 as unfairly prejudicial. The court overruled these objections.
- On appeal Alvarez primarily argued that Article 38.37 violated due process and that the nieces’ testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403. The court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alvarez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Art. 38.37 (due process) | Statute violates due process by permitting trial for other acts, undermining presumption of innocence and lowering State’s burden | Statute is constitutional and contains procedural safeguards; comparable federal rules upheld | Not preserved as raised below; appellate court declines to reach due‑process merits; waived |
| Ex post facto challenge | Applying Art. 38.37 to offenses committed before statute’s enactment is an impermissible retroactive punishment | Art. 38.37 governs admissibility of evidence and does not change elements or quantum of proof | Trial objection raised as ex post facto; court held statute affects admissibility not punishment, so ex post facto not implicated |
| Error preservation on constitutional claims | General “unconstitutional” and “ex post facto” objections preserved issue for appeal | Defendant failed to specify constitutional provision or explain how due process was violated | Court: objections were not sufficiently specific to preserve a new due‑process argument on appeal; waiver applies (Smith exception inapplicable) |
| Rule 403 balancing for extraneous‑acts evidence | Testimony’s prejudicial effect substantially outweighed probative value; should be excluded | Evidence highly probative (propensity/intent/credibility) in child‑sex cases; Rule 403 applied and does not favor exclusion | Abuse‑of‑discretion review; court found trial court did not abuse discretion and properly admitted testimony under Art. 38.37/Rule 403 framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 993 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App. — Tyler 1999) (recognizes special rules for admissibility of other‑child sexual‑assault evidence)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (articulates four‑factor Rule 403 balancing test)
- Bradshaw v. State, 466 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2015) (discusses prejudicial vs. unfairly prejudicial evidence and child‑sex‑abuse context)
- Belcher v. State, 474 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2015) (upholds admission under Art. 38.37 where prior abuse evidence was probative of propensity/credibility)
- Harris v. State, 475 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (holds Art. 38.37 constitutional given statutory procedural safeguards)
- Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explains specificity required to preserve constitutional challenges)
- Smith v. State, 463 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (limited exception permitting appellate review when statute has already been adjudged void)