Jesus Monsivais v. the State of Texas, 04-19-00829-CR

Victim (pseudonym "Amy") testified she was sexually assaulted by her sister Carrie’s then-boyfriend Jesus Monsivais when she was about six–eight years old; SANE nurse and outcry witness (Mother) corroborated elements.
Monsivais was indicted on three counts: aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact; convicted on aggravated sexual assault and one indecency count; sentenced to concurrent terms (20 years and 2 years).
Monsivais filed a timely motion for new trial, then an untimely amended motion (filed after the 30‑day rule) asserting newly discovered evidence (an investigator’s affidavit recounting Carrie's statements).
The trial court allowed the untimely amendment to be overruled by operation of law; Monsivais appealed raising three issues: denial of new trial based on newly discovered evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and error in admitting testimony about a polygraph.
On the newly discovered evidence claim, the court found the amendment untimely and, on the merits, Monsivais failed the four‑prong test (lack of diligence; the proffered affidavit was not likely to change the outcome).
On sufficiency, the court held the child’s testimony plus SANE and other testimony was legally sufficient. On polygraph-related testimony, most complaints were unpreserved and the admission fell within the "opened the door" principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Monsivais)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing amended motion for new trial to be denied by operation of law and whether newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial	Amended motion was untimely; trial court not required to consider the tardy amendment; even on merits defendant fails Arizmendi four‑prong test	Investigator’s affidavit of Carrie is newly discovered and would show lack of opportunity, entitling Monsivais to a new trial	No abuse of discretion—amendment untimely; merits fail for lack of due diligence and affidavit would not probably produce different result
Whether evidence was legally insufficient to support convictions	Child’s testimony (with SANE nurse corroboration) is sufficient; jurors may credit child testimony even if lacking adult‑level detail	Child testimony insufficient because of limited detail and leading questions	Evidence legally sufficient; a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether trial court erred by overruling objection to testimony about motive for not taking a polygraph	Defense opened the door by eliciting polygraph scheduling; State’s follow‑up was permissible to explain non‑occurrence	Admission of testimony about why defendant didn’t take polygraph was speculative and improper	Most polygraph complaints not preserved; court allowed testimony limited to witness’s knowledge and did not abuse discretion

Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for motion for new trial denial is abuse of discretion)
Moore v. State, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court may but need not rule on untimely amended motion absent State objection)
Arizmendi v. State, 519 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (four‑prong test for newly discovered evidence)
Tucker v. State, 456 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (child’s testimony alone can support conviction in sexual‑offense cases)
Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Jackson‑style sufficiency standard phrased for Texas courts)
Lucas v. State, 479 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (party may introduce polygraph evidence when the other party opened the door)
Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (polygraph references generally inadmissible)
Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (specificity requirement for objections to preserve error)
Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (preservation of error requires a timely, specific request or objection and an adverse ruling)