Mickey Charles Robinett v. State
383 S.W.3d 758
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Mickey Charles Robinett was convicted by jury of aggravated sexual assault, sexual performance by a child, and indecent exposure, with concurrent sentences.
- Four girls were victims: H.H. and B.H. (sisters), M.J. (cousin), and M.L. (friend).
- Incidents spanned March 2004 to May 2009 and included various acts described by the victims, including oral contact, dog licking, and use of a massager.
- The State sought to admit outcry testimony under article 38.072; the trial court designated Sharon Hardin as the outcry witness for the offenses against H.H., B.H., and M.J.
- The jury found all seven submitted counts guilty and the court imposed 60-year terms for two aggravated sexual assaults, 20 years for four sexual performances by a child, and 10 years for indecency, with all sentences concurrent.
- Robinett challenged the outcry ruling and asserted cross-examination limitations; both issues were resolved against him and the conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the outcry testimony under article 38.072 | State argues Hardin was the proper outcry witness for distinct events | Robinett contends the designation of Hardin was incorrect and/or non-event-specific | No abuse of discretion; Hardin properly designated as outcry witness for the offenses tried |
| Restriction of cross-examination of the outcry witness | Robinett asserts constitutional cross-examination limits violated his rights | State notes issue not preserved and lacks proper basis for review | Point of error waived/preserved for review not met; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (outcry rule admissibility and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (art. 38.072; testimony must be from first adult to whom statement is made)
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (zone of reasonable disagreement in evidentiary rulings)
- Chapman v. State, 150 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (event-specific outcry analysis)
- Brown v. State, 189 S.W.3d 382 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2006) (multiple outcry witnesses possible for different events)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (outcry testimony and event-specificity; multiple witnesses allowed for separate events)
- West v. State, 121 S.W.3d 95 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2003) (outcry-witness framework; event-specific considerations)
- Reed v. State, 974 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998) (outcry witness concept; admissibility considerations)
- Broderick v. State, 35 S.W.3d 67 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000) (event-specific outcry witness discussion)