Ford, Jamie Lee, PD-0657-15

Jamie Lee Ford was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and sentenced to 37 years.
The key trial testimony included the child-victim, a neighbor who described the child’s outcry and character, and a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) who performed a post-outcry exam and testified the exam was normal and that a normal exam is common in abused children.
Defense objected at trial to (1) the SANE’s testimony as improperly bolstering the complainant and (2) repeated questions to the neighbor that defense labeled as "boosting credibility;" the trial court overruled the SANE reliability objection, sustained one boosting objection and denied a mistrial.
On appeal to the Second Court of Appeals, Ford argued trial-court abuse of discretion in admitting the expert and in denying the mistrial; the court affirmed.
The appellate court distinguished Salinas (holding expert testimony diagnosing abuse based solely on history impermissibly bolsters credibility) because here the SANE made no diagnosis and testified only that normal exams are common in abused children.
The appellate court also held Ford failed to preserve the mistrial complaint and inadequately briefed the second point, noting repeated unobjected-to questions before objections were made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ford)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of SANE testimony (expert evidence)	SANE testimony improperly bolstered complainant by relying on history/records akin to Salinas	SANE never diagnosed abuse and only testified that normal exams are common; testimony aided juror understanding	Admission not an abuse of discretion; expert testimony permissible where no direct opinion on complainant truthfulness
Denial of mistrial for alleged bolstering by neighbor testimony	Repeated questions by prosecutor impermissibly boosted complainant’s credibility; mistrial warranted	Objections were untimely and the record shows repeated answers before objections; error not preserved and briefing inadequate	Error not preserved; appellate brief inadequately developed the argument; mistrial denial affirmed

Sexton v. State, 93 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard for review of admission/exclusion of expert testimony)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Salinas v. State, 166 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (expert diagnosing abuse based solely on child’s history impermissibly bolsters credibility)
Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (limits on expert testimony that comments on complainant truthfulness)
Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial reserved for prejudice that cannot be cured by instruction)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (requirement to object before an objectionable response is given to preserve error)
Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2005) (courts should avoid overly technical enforcement of preservation rules)
In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003) (procedural rules interpreted with fairness and judicial economy in mind)
Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (permissibility of testimony about behavioral characteristics common among abused children)