James Arceneaux v. State, 09-14-00329-CR

James Arceneaux was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child (victim R.H.), sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. The conviction stemmed from allegations that Arceneaux inserted his penis into R.H., who was under 14.
R.H., who testified at trial, described the assault; a recorded forensic interview of R.H. (conducted by Nancy Blitch when R.H. was six) was admitted at trial and identified Arceneaux as the abuser.
Walter Oliver (R.H.’s uncle) testified as the State’s outcry witness that R.H. told him Arceneaux "stuck his thing inside of her thing." The trial court held a reliability hearing before admitting Oliver’s testimony under article 38.072.
R.F., R.H.’s sister, testified to prior similar acts by Arceneaux (touching their genitals, showing his genitals, and witnessing him touch R.H.), which the State offered as extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b).
Defense theory attacked R.H.’s credibility, alleging family fabrication and coaching; defense objected to admission of the recorded interview, Oliver’s outcry testimony, and R.F.’s extraneous-offense testimony.
The trial court overruled objections, admitting (1) the recorded interview as a prior consistent statement, (2) Oliver as the outcry witness after a reliability hearing, and (3) R.F.’s testimony under Rule 404(b). The court of appeals affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Arceneaux)	Held
Admission of recorded forensic interview after R.H. testified	Recording is a prior consistent statement admissible to rebut implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence	Admission was hearsay and unduly prejudicial under Tex. R. Evid. 403	Court upheld admission under Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(1)(B) and Rule 403 (no abuse of discretion)
Admissibility of outcry witness (Oliver)	Oliver was the first adult to whom R.H. made a discernible description qualifying under art. 38.072	Oliver was not the first adult recipient; hearsay objection	Court found reliability and discernible detail; admitted Oliver under art. 38.072 (no abuse of discretion)
Admission of R.F.’s testimony about other acts (extraneous offenses)	Testimony is admissible under Rule 404(b) to rebut defensive theory, show common scheme, opportunity, motive	Testimony is impermissible character/propensity evidence and overly prejudicial under Rule 403	Court held testimony admissible under Rule 404(b) and not substantially more prejudicial than probative (no abuse of discretion)

Hammons v. State, 239 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (framework for admitting prior consistent statements to rebut implied fabrication)
Fears v. State, 479 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015) (discussing trial court discretion for prior consistent statements)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Rule 403 balancing presumption favoring admissibility of relevant evidence)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 probative vs. prejudice balancing)
Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (outcry witness admissibility standard)
Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (standard for article 38.072 outcry statement reliability hearing)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (procedural requirements for outcry admissibility)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for extraneous-offense evidence)
Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Rule 404(b) admissibility discussion)
Self v. State, 860 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993) (similar acts admissible to counter credibility attack)
Rivera v. State, 269 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (conducting Rule 403 analysis for extraneous-offense evidence)