Ricardo Ontiveros Rodriguez v. State, 05-14-01225-CR

Appellant Ricardo Ontiveros Rodriguez (the uncle) was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by contact; jury assessed 6.5 years’ imprisonment after Rodriguez pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph.
Victim E.R. testified to multiple inappropriate incidents over years: (1) Rodriguez lifting covers to look at her, (2) observing her after a shower and making sexual comments, and (3) while she slept in fifth grade, placing his hand inside her pajama pants and touching her vagina.
E.R. disclosed earlier incidents to a church children’s minister in 2007 and later (in 2012) to a therapist, who reported the outcry to CPS; police investigated and Detective Irwin testified at an examining trial.
Rodriguez denied the touching allegation and offered non-sexual explanations for the earlier incidents and his statements; credibility was thus the central issue at trial.
Trial court admitted testimony about the two prior incidents (looking at her and commenting on her body) under article 38.37 and after an implicit Rule 403 balancing; Rodriguez objected as unduly prejudicial.
On appeal Rodriguez raised four points: (1) magistrate erred at the examining trial in finding probable cause, (2) evidence insufficient to support the verdict, (3) jury improperly relied on circumstantial evidence, and (4) erroneously admitted extraneous-act evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez)	Held
Validity of examining trial probable-cause finding	Irwin’s testimony supported probable cause to proceed	Irwin’s testimony insufficient; magistrate erred and case should be dismissed	Indictment by grand jury rendered the issue moot; point denied
Sufficiency of evidence to support indecency conviction	E.R.’s testimony (and outcry) alone is sufficient to prove touching and intent	E.R. not credible; evidence insufficient and jury impermissibly inferred guilt from circumstantial evidence	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, conviction upheld
Reliance on circumstantial evidence for intent	Intent can be inferred from acts, words, conduct and surrounding circumstances	Jury impermissibly speculated from circumstantial evidence	Court held inferences from conduct and prior remarks reasonably support finding of intent
Admission of extraneous-act evidence (covers/shower incidents)	Admissible under art. 38.37 to show relationship and state of mind; probative value outweighs prejudice	Evidence more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403; should have been excluded	Trial court did not abuse discretion; article 38.37 and Rule 403 balance favored admission

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applies Jackson standard)
Perez v. State, 590 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. Crim. App.) (grand jury indictment conclusively establishes probable cause)
Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (return of true bill conclusively determines probable cause)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 403 review)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 403 exclusion to be used sparingly in he-said/she-said sexual-molestation cases)