Israel Jose Balderas v. State, 05-14-00900-CR

In October 2012, A.B., a four-year-old, allegedly told family members that appellant Israel Balderas had put his "wee wee" on her; medical exam showed no injury but vaginal swabs contained sperm.
Forensic DNA testing matched the sperm profile to Balderas (statistical rarity ~1 in 276.4 quadrillion Southwestern Hispanics).
Patricia Guardiola, the court‑designated statutory outcry witness, conducted forensic interviews of A.B. and testified about A.B.’s statements identifying "Daddy Israel" as the perpetrator.
The State proceeded without calling A.B. to testify at trial; defense counsel objected that this violated the Confrontation Clause but agreed Guardiola was the proper outcry witness.
A jury convicted Balderas of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed 50 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Balderas argued his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated by admission of the forensic interview contents because A.B. did not testify, was not found incompetent or unavailable, and defense had no chance to cross‑examine before admission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of A.B.’s forensic interview statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Balderas: admission violated confrontation because A.B. did not testify, was not unavailable or deemed incompetent, and defense had no pre‑admission cross‑examination	State: Guardiola was proper statutory outcry witness; defense failed to preserve a confrontation objection to the interview contents	Court: Issue not preserved because trial objection did not match appellate theory; alternatively, any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App.) (specific, timely objection required to preserve error)
Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial objection must comport with appellate complaint)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure to timely confrontation objection waives right)
Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (Confrontation Clause is forfeitable; preservation required)
Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Confrontation Clause errors reviewed for harmlessness under Rule 44.2(a))
Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless‑error framework)
Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App.) (focus on whether error moved jury from non‑persuasion to persuasion)
Sanders v. State, 422 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (inadmissible hearsay may be harmless when cumulative of other unobjected evidence)
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (Confrontation Clause applicable to the states)