Joe Frank Cuellar v. State, 11-15-00080-CR

Background

Joe Frank Cuellar was indicted in multiple indictments for sexual assault of several adopted children; three cases were tried together and one was abandoned. Jury convicted Cuellar and assessed life sentences in each case.
The children had been removed from parents, adopted by their aunt Rosa, and lived with Cuellar; allegations arose after Cuellar’s sister reported suspicions to police.
The State filed a list of potential expert witnesses (including therapist Stephanie Quintanar) shortly before trial; defense requested disclosure four days before trial but did not obtain a court order under the pre-2015 Article 39.14(b).
During trial, the court allowed Quintanar to testify; defense objected post-testimony based on late designation and request for continuance was denied.
Defense sought to present L.G. as a witness; the court found L.G. unavailable after expert testimony showed severe PTSD, hospitalization, suicidal behavior, and risk from testifying; defense did not present sworn evidence about what L.G. would testify to.
State introduced evidence and testimony about Cuellar’s religious beliefs (e.g., signs and statements that he believed he was Christ); pretrial motion in limine limited such evidence unless linked to coercion, and the trial court allowed the State to discuss beliefs in context of coercion without bench approach.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cuellar)	Held
Trial court denied continuance / late expert disclosure under Art. 39.14(b)	State argued it disclosed potential experts and intended to call Quintanar; no court order requiring disclosure was ever obtained by defense	Cuellar argued Article 39.14(b) required disclosure within 20 days and that late designation harmed defense	Court: No error preserved—defense failed to obtain the required pretrial order under pre-2015 Article 39.14(b), so claim waived
Court found witness L.G. unavailable; alleged violation of compulsory process	State relied on expert testimony that L.G. was emotionally unstable, suicidal, hospitalized, and that testifying would worsen PTSD	Cuellar argued his right to compulsory process and that L.G. could have supported theory that she influenced younger siblings to fabricate allegations	Court: No abuse of discretion—defense failed to present sworn evidence showing what L.G. would testify to and how it would be material and favorable; availability ruling upheld
Admission of evidence about defendant’s religious beliefs	State: evidence was relevant to show how Cuellar used claims of being Christ to coerce and control victims	Cuellar: evidence irrelevant and prejudicial; trial publicity of beliefs inflamed jury and was unrelated to merits	Court: Error not preserved—pretrial limine allowed such evidence in context of coercion; many challenged items admitted without timely specific objection; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

Harris v. State, 287 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (preservation requirement to obtain trial court order for expert disclosure under prior Article 39.14(b))
Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discussed in context of article amendments and preservation)
Tamez v. State, 205 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (expert-disclosure preservation principles)
Coleman v. State, 966 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (compulsory process requires sworn showing that witness testimony would be material and favorable)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional right to compulsory process and to present a defense)
Emenhiser v. State, 196 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for compulsory-process claims)
Hayden v. State, 296 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (uphold trial court ruling if reasonably supported and correct on any theory)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (need for specific, timely objection to preserve error)
Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (admission of same evidence elsewhere without objection cures prior error)
Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (motion in limine does not preserve error; contemporaneous objection required)