Lindberg, Timothy James
PD-1389-15
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2015Background
- Defendant Timothy James Lindberg was convicted by a Tarrant County jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (oral and anal contact) and sentenced to 38 years concurrent on each count. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Allegations arose from a 4‑year‑old complainant who told her mother, later gave a recorded forensic interview, and was examined by a SANE; the child testified at trial and, at trial, denied anal contact but reported oral contact.
- The State introduced: (1) the forensic‑interview video (played in full), (2) testimony from the child’s mother (outcry) and the SANE (medical exam and what child told her), and (3) expert testimony from the forensic interviewer about “rolling” disclosures.
- Defense contested: (a) admission of the full forensic‑interview video under Rule 107 (optional completeness), (b) lack of a limiting instruction, (c) admissibility of statements to the SANE under Rule 803(4), (d) the expert’s general testimony about disclosure patterns, and (e) sufficiency of the evidence for the anal‑contact count (child’s out‑of‑court statements contradicted by her in‑court testimony and a stipulation that she later recanted).
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court on all preserved issues, finding the video admissible under Rule 107, the expert testimony permissible, the SANE testimony covered by Rule 803(4), and the evidence (including out‑of‑court statements) sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lindberg's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of entire forensic‑interview video under Rule 107 (optional completeness) | Defense opened the interview by referencing parts of it in opening and cross‑examination, creating a risk of false impressions; full video was necessary to give context, so Rule 107 permitted full admission. | No portion of the interview had been "given in evidence" by defense; Rule 107 is not triggered and does not permit wholesale admission; Credille/Mick are distinguishable; Washington/Sauceda require a party to first "give" part of the statement. | Court of Appeals: affirmed admission under Rule 107; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Denial of a limiting instruction for evidence admitted under Rule 107/limited purpose | Evidence was admissible for context and, the State argued, was admissible for all purposes; no limiting instruction was required. | Rule 107 evidence is admitted for a limited purpose; when timely requested the court must give a limiting instruction under Rule 105. | Court of Appeals: reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed (denial not reversible). |
| Expert testimony about “rolling” disclosures and other cases (forensic interviewer) | Testimony described behavioral patterns common in abused children and was proper, relevant expert evidence that could help explain inconsistent disclosures. | Testimony was generic, untied to the facts of this case, risked bolstering the child’s credibility and was inadmissible or should be excluded under Rules 401/403. | Court of Appeals: admissible; trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for anal‑contact count under Jackson v. Virginia | All evidence admitted (outcry, SANE report, forensic interview) considered together supports a rational factfinder’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. | Conviction rests on uncorroborated, unsworn out‑of‑court statements that were directly contradicted by the complainant’s in‑court testimony and a stipulation that she later denied anal contact; under Jackson the evidence is legally insufficient. | Court of Appeals: viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, held evidence sufficient and affirmed convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal sufficiency review of criminal convictions)
- Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses Rule 107/optional completeness and related admissibility issues)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limits Rule 803(4) medical‑purpose hearsay: declarant must understand purpose and truthfulness relevance)
- Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App.) (requires that Rule 107 be triggered only after a party has put a portion of a recorded statement in evidence)
- Mick v. State, 256 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.-Texarkana) (upheld admission of a forensic‑interview video under Rule 107 where defense opened parts of the recording)
- Credille v. State, 925 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]) (applied Rule 107 to admit a full videotaped interview when defense questioning risked false impressions)
- Kimberlin v. State, 877 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth) (recognizes that a child’s outcry alone can support conviction; discussed in sufficiency context)