Enrique Baez v. the State of Texas
14-19-00480-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Enrique Baez was indicted for aggravated sexual assault (first-degree felony) for alleged anal penetration and threats on November 20, 2016; victim identified as E.C.
- E.C. had severe facial injuries; she was examined by a SANE nurse (Lindsey Gagnon) and treated at Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital; SANE report and hospital records memorialized her account (including alleged anal and vaginal penetration, cigarette burns, tied hands/mouth, and a threatened death).
- E.C. did not testify at trial; the State admitted the SANE report and hospital records over defense hearsay objection; defense did not object on Confrontation Clause grounds at trial.
- DNA testing recovered male sperm on E.C.’s underwear; the analyst testified Baez could not be excluded as a contributor (very low random-match probabilities); anal and vaginal swabs were inconclusive.
- Other witnesses: Officer Miller (responding officer who initiated a warrant), Detective Magness (investigative interview consistent with SANE statements), and SANE nurse testimony about the exam and evidence collection.
- Jury convicted Baez; punishment assessed at 10 years’ imprisonment. Baez appealed raising sufficiency, hearsay admission, and Confrontation Clause claims; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (identity and anal penetration) | Combined evidence (officer/detective testimony, SANE report, and DNA match on underwear) permits a rational juror to find identity and anal penetration beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient: victim did not testify; medical records conflict about whether penetration was anal or vaginal; no anal injury | Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient to prove Baez was assailant and that anal penetration occurred |
| Admission of medical records (hearsay) | Records and SANE report were admissible (business‑records affidavits; Rule 803(4) medical exception); any error was harmless because same facts proved by other unobjected evidence | Admission violated hearsay rules; State did not show statements were necessary for treatment as required by Taylor | Even assuming error, it was harmless because other competent unobjected evidence established the same facts; issue overruled |
| Confrontation Clause (testimonial statements in SANE/hospital records) | Not raised at trial; State notes absence of timely, specific Confrontation Clause objection | Admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements without cross‑examination violates the Sixth Amendment | Waived on appeal for lack of specific, timely objection at trial; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805 (sufficiency and evaluating circumstantial evidence)
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (hypothetically correct jury charge standard)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (medical‑treatment hearsay exception requires showing identity information was pertinent to treatment)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework — testimonial statements)
- Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315 (application of Crawford in Texas criminal cases)
- Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (preservation of Confrontation Clause objections)