Jose DeJesus Maldonado, Jr. v. State
10-15-00164-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Appellant Jose DeJesus Maldonado, Jr. appealed convictions from Ellis County; the record contains a Rule 412 (sexual misconduct evidence) in camera hearing transcript and exhibits in Volume 4 of the reporter's record.
- The Rule 412 hearing transcript, exhibits, and briefs discussing the hearing were filed in a manner that did not comply with Rule 412's sealing requirements.
- The Court ordered immediate sealing of Volume 4, the hearing exhibits, the trial court's corresponding records, and the parties' briefs to prevent public dissemination of Rule 412 material.
- Maldonado contested that his confrontation rights were violated because he was not permitted to cross-examine the victim at the Rule 412 in camera hearing.
- The Court agreed the defendant should have been allowed to question the victim at the in camera hearing and thus abated the appeal for a proper Rule 412 hearing allowing cross-examination within evidentiary limits.
- The Court set deadlines: the trial court must hold the sealed Rule 412 hearing within 60 days, file a sealed supplemental record within 14 days of that hearing, and provided a new briefing schedule for the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of defendant from cross-examining the victim at the Rule 412 in camera hearing violated confrontation rights | Maldonado: denial of opportunity to cross-examine deprived him of ability to develop defense and violated confrontation rights | State: (implicit) Rule 412 hearing procedures justified limiting questioning and sealing | Court: Sustained in part — trial court should have allowed cross-examination; appeal abated for a new Rule 412 hearing permitting defendant’s questioning within evidentiary limits |
| Whether Rule 412 materials were properly filed and accessible | Maldonado: briefs included Rule 412 issue but were not sealed as required | State: (implicit) briefs as filed were before this Court but not compliant with sealing | Court: Ordered sealing of reporter’s record volume, exhibits, trial clerk records, and the parties’ briefs; directed recovery of disseminated copies |
| Proper remedy for procedural error at in camera hearing | Maldonado: requested relief for confrontation violation (new hearing/remedy) | State: (implicit) remedial procedures consistent with Rule 412 | Court: Abated appeal; directed trial court to conduct sealed hearing allowing cross-examination and to file sealed supplemental records; new briefing schedule imposed |
| Scope of existing briefs after sealing | Maldonado: originally raised multiple issues in briefs that discussed Rule 412 matters | State: (implicit) responded in same briefs | Court: Sealed entire briefs; will consider only the Rule 412 issue now; all other issues must be rebriefed in new briefs after supplemental record |
Key Cases Cited
- LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (trial court must allow parties to be present and examine alleged victim at in camera Rule 412 hearings)
- LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussing remedy and right to cross-examination at Rule 412 hearing)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (confrontation clause principles govern the right to cross-examination)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (recognizing defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses to challenge credibility)