Jose Luis Munoz v. State
05-16-00153-CR
| Tex. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Jose Luis Munoz pleaded nolo contendere to two aggravated sexual-assault charges and one indecency-with-a-child charge, waived a jury, and was tried to the court without a plea bargain.
- The trial court convicted Munoz of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, acquitted him on the other two counts, and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
- The complainant, DM, testified about repeated sexual abuse beginning in first grade while living in Munoz’s house; she later disclosed the abuse, entered therapy, and the State prosecuted.
- Carla O’Hara, a clinical therapist who led DM’s group therapy sessions, testified DM was initially reluctant but over 114 sessions recounted the abuse in detail and that DM’s trial testimony was consistent with what she had reported in therapy.
- The prosecutor asked O’Hara whether she saw any “red flags” (signs of lying, exaggeration, coaching); Munoz objected as improper opinion on witness credibility; the court overruled and O’Hara testified she saw no red flags.
- Munoz appealed, arguing O’Hara’s testimony was the functional equivalent of an opinion that DM was truthful and thus inadmissible; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a therapist’s testimony that she saw no "red flags" amounted to inadmissible opinion on complainant’s truthfulness | Munoz: O’Hara’s “no red flags” testimony and prior consistency remark amounted to an expert opinion that DM was truthful, improperly bolstering credibility | State: Testimony described behavioral indicators and absence of manipulation signs, not a direct statement that the complainant was telling the truth | Court: Overruling objection was not an abuse of discretion; testimony was permissible as describing absence of indicators of coaching/manipulation rather than a direct credibility opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (experts may not opine on truthfulness of a particular complainant)
- Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (expert testimony about absence of signs of manipulation is not a direct comment on truthfulness)