Galen Dwayne Baugus v. State, 09-16-00495-CR

Background

Appellant Galen Dwayne Baugus was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child; jury convicted and, based on an enhancement, sentenced to life imprisonment.
Victim K.G., age nine at the time, testified that while riding in the appellant’s truck he digitally penetrated her vagina; she reported the assault the same day and received a SANE exam and forensic interview.
Police collected swabs from the appellant’s truck and the robe K.G. wore; DNA testing excluded the appellant from the robe samples and excluded K.G. from some truck swabs; the State acknowledged the DNA did not inculpate the appellant.
The State introduced extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37: testimony from K.B. that the appellant sexually assaulted her years earlier.
Defense raised multiple objections: motion for continuance to obtain DNA expert review, Rule 403 objection to extraneous-offense evidence, Daubert/Rule 702 challenges to expert testimony (Dr. Lawrence Thompson), and objection to allowing a counselor to remain in the courtroom despite Rule 614.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance to review DNA records	State: denial not reversible; defendant failed to show specific prejudice or what additional review would reveal	Baugus: needed more time for independent DNA expert review; records arrived late	Denial affirmed — no specific prejudice shown; DNA did not inculpate appellant and benefit of review was speculative
Admissibility of extraneous sexual-offense evidence under art. 38.37	State: art. 38.37 permits admission with procedural safeguards; evidence of K.B. is relevant to show propensity and rebut fabrication defense	Baugus: admission violated due process, presumption of innocence, and lowered burden of proof	Admission affirmed — defendant failed to preserve constitutional challenge; courts uniformly uphold §2(b) and safeguards were applied
Rule 403 balancing of extraneous-offense evidence	State: probative value high given fabrication defense and lack of physical corroboration; procedural limits minimized prejudice	Baugus: testimony was overly prejudicial and should have been excluded	Overruled — trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Qualification and testimony of child-abuse expert (Dr. Thompson)	State: Thompson is qualified by education, experience, publications; his testimony (including <3% false-allegation estimate) assists jury	Baugus: challenged qualification/relevance and objected to the numeric false-allegation figure	Affirmed — Thompson qualified; objection to quantification not properly preserved and any error was harmless
Exemption from witness sequestration (Rule 614) for counselor Palmitier	State: counselor’s presence was justified and harmless; her testimony largely repeated prior outcry details	Baugus: allowing counselor to stay violated sequestration and risked influence	Affirmed — even if error, harmless given counselor merely recounted prior statements and victim’s testimony was strong
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction	State: K.G.’s direct, consistent testimony and corroborating facts (opportunity, shower, demeanor) suffice	Baugus: challenged sufficiency of evidence	Affirmed — K.G.’s testimony alone suffices under controlling law; corroboration supports credibility

Key Cases Cited

Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standards for continuance and need to show specific prejudice)
Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (continuance—specific prejudice requirement)
Belcher v. State, 474 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (upholding constitutionality of article 38.37 §2(b) and noting safeguards)
Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (expert testimony admissibility standards under Rule 702)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)