Pablo Gonzales, Jr. v. State, 477 S.W.3d 475

Defendant Pablo Gonzales, Jr. was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child based on abuse of multiple related child victims who stayed at his home in 2004–2005.
Four indictments issued; convictions carried life sentence for the aggravated-assault count, 20 years for each indecency count, and $10,000 fines each; defendant arrested in California in 2012 and extradited to Texas.
Several child complainants (Jane Does A, B, C, and E) testified at trial; one mother (T.P.) was called in an Article 38.072 outcry hearing about Jane Doe A’s outcry; the court admitted T.P.’s testimony as reliable for Jane Doe A.
The State offered extraneous-offense testimony from T.H., another child who described similar sexual abuse by defendant; the trial court admitted that testimony under Article 38.37 after a pretrial adequacy hearing.
Defendant challenged (1) admission of T.P.’s outcry testimony, (2) admission of evidence he did not waive extradition, (3) adequacy of T.H.’s evidence to prove extraneous offenses, and (4) Rule 403 prejudice from T.H.’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gonzales)	Held
Admissibility of outcry (Art. 38.072)	T.P.’s testimony should be admitted as a reliable outcry for Jane Doe A	T.P.’s drug use made her memory unreliable; outcry lacked indicia of reliability	Court affirmed admission; trial court did not abuse discretion; any error harmless because Jane Doe A testified and corroborated outcry
Testimony that defendant did not waive extradition	Evidence of nonwaiver was relevant to timeline/flight issues	Admission violated due process/due course of law	Issue not preserved on appeal (trial objection was only relevance), so overruled for lack of preservation
Adequacy of extraneous-offense proof (Art. 38.37 §2‑a)	T.H.’s testimony supports admission and meets elements for extraneous sexual offenses	Evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held T.H.’s testimony was adequate to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt; admission proper
Rule 403 prejudicial effect of extraneous-offense evidence	Need for corroboration and relevance to credibility justified admission	Probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Court found no abuse of discretion; trial judge reasonably balanced probative value, prejudice, and State’s need

Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (factors and framework for assessing evidentiary rulings)
Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Rule 403 review of extraneous offenses; deference to trial court)
Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (nonexclusive factors for Rule 403 balancing with extraneous-offense evidence)
Islas‑Martinez v. State, 452 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (child testimony alone can support conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child)