Francisco Matamoros v. State
13-13-00692-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 5, 2015Background
- Appellant Francisco Matamoros was indicted on seven counts (one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child, multiple counts of indecency and sexual assault of a child); the State dismissed four counts at trial and the jury convicted on three counts. Sentence: life imprisonment on the continuous-abuse count; 20 years + $10,000 fines on two sexual-assault counts.
- Victim (Y.M.) made out-of-court disclosures to a forensic interviewer and to medical personnel; a SANE report containing Y.M.’s medical-history statement described penile and digital penetration spanning elementary through middle school years; the SANE nurse who performed the exam did not testify; a nurse coordinator (Eddleman) reviewed and testified about the records.
- CPS and a counselor (Corkhill) also related disclosures by Y.M.; defense obtained a signed letter from Y.M. withdrawing charges and elicited testimony that Y.M. declined to describe details at trial.
- Defense made numerous evidentiary and Confrontation Clause objections (challenging hearsay admission of medical history and testimony by Eddleman/Corkhill), voir dire and jury-charge claims, Brady/CPS-records timing and continuance claims, and several objections to prosecutor closing arguments; trial court admitted the SANE records under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception and overruled most objections; the jury convicted.
- On appeal Matamoros raised 28 issues (sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, confrontation clause, Brady/timing of CPS records, voir dire, jury charge on lesser-included offense, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance and cumulative error); the court affirmed in a memorandum opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Matamoros’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Count I continuous abuse; Counts IV,V sexual assault) | Evidence lacked admissible proof of required acts/timing; relied on hearsay (SANE report, therapist) | Appellant’s out-of-court statements and experts’ testimony were admitted; jury may rely on admitted evidence and reasonable inferences | Evidence (SANE report, Eddleman, Corkhill, victim’s statements) was sufficient; issues 1–3 overruled |
| Admissibility of SANE/medical-history statements (hearsay / Rule 803(4)) | Medical-history statements were not made for diagnosis/treatment and thus inadmissible hearsay | Statements to medical personnel in hospital SANE exam are presumptively for diagnosis/treatment and reasonably pertinent; proponent met burden | Admission under Rule 803(4) proper; issues 13–14 overruled |
| Confrontation Clause (admission of out-of-court statements via records/expert testimony) | Admission of testimonial hearsay violated Sixth Amendment because declarant’s prior testimony was effectively used | Victim testified at trial and was cross-examined; Crawford permits prior statements where declarant appears for cross-exam | Confrontation claim fails because victim testified and was subject to cross-examination; issues 15–20 overruled |
| Timeliness of CPS records / Brady / continuance | Late disclosure of voluminous CPS records during trial prejudiced defense and denied effective assistance / due process; requested continuance denied | Records were confidential; State complied with in-camera process and provided records; defense received 24 hours and cross-examined; no contemporaneous due-process/Brady objection | Appellant failed to preserve Brady/due-process claim and showed no actual prejudice from denial of continuance; issues 21–24 overruled |
| Voir dire / peremptory challenge (commitment question; extra peremptory) | Prosecutor asked improper commitment question; trial court erred denying extra peremptory when counsel mistakenly used a strike | No contemporaneous objection to commitment question; no authority for striking veniremember for making "ugly faces"; no showing an objectionable juror served | Commitment-question complaint waived for lack of timely objection; no harm shown re: peremptory challenge; issues 25–26 overruled |
| Expert/lay testimony commenting on victim credibility (Novoa, Cruz, Eddleman) | Witnesses vouched for veracity or offered legal conclusions about guilt/credibility | Testimony was based on witnesses’ perceptions, investigations, and proper expert review of medical records; trial court issued limiting instructions where appropriate | Court found no abuse of discretion; most complaints not preserved or were admissible opinions; issues 10–12 overruled |
| Jury charge (lesser-included indecency) | Evidence could support only touching (indecency) during charged period; should have instructed lesser-included offense | Medical history and other evidence described penetration over the period; no affirmative evidence negating penetration element of greater offense | No rational basis for indecency-only verdict; requested lesser-included charge not warranted; issue 27 overruled |
| Prosecutorial closing argument / mistrial requests | Argument improperly injected facts outside evidence, personal opinion, community pressure, and attacked defense over counsel’s shoulder; trial court erred denying mistrials | Objections were sustained where warranted; many comments were permissible (response to defense, plea for law enforcement); some remarks cured by instruction; no willful/ calculated deprivation | Most remarks deemed preserved or harmless; one remark calling belief in dismissed counts improper but cured by instruction; overall not reversible; issues 4–9 overruled |
| Cumulative error | Multiple trial errors cumulatively denied fair trial | Many objections were overruled or not preserved; non-errors cannot cumulate | No reversible errors found; cumulative-error claim fails; issue 28 overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence rule)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limitations of Rule 803(4) for statements to counselors vs. medical personnel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause: testimonial hearsay barred unless declarant unavailable and prior cross-examined)
- Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App.) (improper commitment question at voir dire)
- Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App.) (analyzing mistrial denial for improper argument)
- Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption jurors follow curative instruction)
- Taylor (further relied) and Renville v. United States, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir.) (medical statements about identity and household context relevant to treatment and safety)