Escamilla v. State
334 S.W.3d 263
Tex. App.2011Background
- Escamilla was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his two-year-old daughter (D.A.E.) and sentenced to life in prison, with the judgment affirmed on discretionary review.
- D.A.E. testified at trial that her father touched her with his finger, locating the area on a doll to describe the act.
- The State offered D.A.E.’s outcry through her mother under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072; the trial court admitted it as substantive evidence.
- A competency hearing occurred; at trial, D.A.E. was three years, nine months old; expert Dr. Pina testified about her average intellect for her age and no delusions.
- The State introduced testimony from nurse examiner Garza regarding anal dilation and other findings; Escamilla objected on reliability grounds, which the court overruled.
- The majority affirmed the trial court’s judgment, while a dissent argued the Garza testimony was admissible and should have been admitted under reliability standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.A.E.'s testimony and the outcry were admissible given claimed incompetence | Escamilla argued D.A.E. was incompetent due to age and intellect | State contended the trial court properly determined competency and admissibility under statutes and rules | No abuse of discretion; D.A.E. competent and outcry admissible |
| Whether Garza's testimony about rapid anal dilation was sufficiently reliable to admit | Escamilla argued the theory and methodology were not reliably established | State argued Garza's qualifications and method met reliability standards under Rule 702/705 | Trial court erred in admitting Garza's rapid-dilation opinion, but error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirchner v. State, 739 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987) (authority on child witness competency review and abuse cases)
- De Los Santos v. State, 219 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006) (examines competency standards for child witnesses)
- Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (three-part test for competency: observation, recollection, narration)
- In re A.W., 147 S.W.3d 632 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004) (credibility vs. competency distinction in child testimony)
- Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (outcry testimony admissibility under article 38.072)
- Rodrigues v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (gatekeeping reliability framework for expert testimony (flexible approach))
- Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (reliability standards for expert evidence; three-prong foundation)
- Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (Kelly reliability criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (gatekeeping and reliability in expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (flexible standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (sliding-scale approach to expert qualifications based on topic)