Jay Tony Rackley v. State
12-14-00331-CR
Tex. Crim. App.Dec 16, 2015Background
- Jay Tony Rackley was tried in a bench trial on one count of indecency with a child (two aggravated sexual assault counts and an enhancement were abandoned); convicted and sentenced to 15 years.
- The alleged victim, C.R., Rackley’s daughter, testified she was 16 when Rackley touched her breasts and vagina, digitally penetrated her, performed oral contact, rubbed his genitals against her, had an erection, masturbated, and ejaculated on her.
- State called witnesses including Cheron Dyer (who assisted the victim when disclosures were made), forensic interviewer Sheila Durden, and counselor Summer Wilson; Rackley presented no witnesses.
- Rackley raised five appellate issues: (1) hearsay—admission of Dyer’s testimony about C.R.’s statements; (2) alleged improper testimony by the forensic interviewer about the victim’s demeanor/consistency with abuse; (3) hearsay—admission of counselor Wilson’s report/narrative under the medical-diagnosis exception; (4) alleged improper victim-impact testimony during guilt/innocence; (5) legal sufficiency of the evidence.
- The trial court admitted Dyer’s testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 107 (optional completeness) after defense cross-examination elicited portions of Dyer’s written statement; the court admitted Durden’s testimony about behaviors consistent with abuse and admitted Wilson’s notes and victim narrative under Rule 803(4) after finding the record showed the child understood truthfulness was necessary for diagnosis/treatment.
- The appellate court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and sufficiency under Jackson v. Virginia; it affirmed on all five issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rackley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of Dyer’s testimony recounting C.R.’s statements (hearsay) | State: Rule 107 permitted completion after defense opened parts of Dyer’s statement on cross | Rackley: Dyer was not an outcry witness and her recounting of C.R.’s statements was inadmissible hearsay | Court: Overruled; Rule 107 properly allowed the remainder of Dyer’s statement to avoid misleading the trier of fact |
| 2. Forensic interviewer’s testimony that victim’s demeanor was consistent with sexual abuse (bolstering) | State: Witness testified to behaviors consistent with abuse, not truthfulness—permitted to show traumatic-consistent behavior | Rackley: Testimony improperly bolstered victim and vouched for truthfulness | Court: Overruled; expert may testify that observed behavior is consistent with child sexual abuse (not opine on truthfulness) |
| 3. Admission of counselor Wilson’s report/narrative under Rule 803(4) (hearsay exception) | State: Statements to counselor were for diagnosis/treatment; counselor explained importance of truth and child understood need to be truthful | Rackley: Hearsay; Rule 803(4) inapplicable because therapeutic context may not guarantee awareness of necessity of truthfulness | Court: Overruled; record showed counselor explained importance and child manifested understanding—803(4) applied |
| 4. Victim impact testimony during guilt/innocence | State: Questions concerned victim’s own feelings, symptoms, nightmares and PTSD (relevant to victim testimony) | Rackley: Evidence was impermissible victim-impact testimony at guilt/innocence phase | Court: Overruled; testimony addressed the effect on the victim herself (not third parties), so not barred as victim-impact evidence |
| 5. Legal sufficiency of evidence to prove indecency with a child | State: Victim’s testimony alone is sufficient under Texas law and shows sexual contact and surrounding circumstances supporting intent | Rackley: Testimony conflicted with scientific/physical evidence and lacked corroboration | Court: Overruled; under Jackson, a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the victim’s testimony (child’s testimony need not be corroborated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Apolinar v. State, 155 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App.) (purpose and limits of Rule 107 optional completeness)
- Mick v. State, 256 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.–Texarkana) (Rule 107 and Rule 403 interaction)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying Rule 803(4) to statements to nonmedical therapists and requiring record support that declarant knew truthfulness mattered)
- Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Crim. App.) (expert testimony on behaviors consistent with sexual abuse admissible to show traumatic events)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury is sole judge of credibility; limits on expert opining on truthfulness)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal sufficiency standard)