Ricardo Torres v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1900

Background

Torres was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, enhanced by a prior felony, and sentenced to life in prison.
The complainant was the appellant’s stepdaughter; multiple witnesses, including a daycare operator, nurses, detectives, a therapist, and family members, testified at trial.
The child made outcry statements starting in 2007 and again in 2009, with SANE examinations corroborating symptoms and allegations.
Torres challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the complainant’s competency, outcry testimony, nurse opinions, and several trial motions (mistrial, new trial, subpoenas).
The trial court admitted outcry testimony and nurse opinions; Torres argued juror misconduct and improper questioning, which the court denied; the appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Torres claims the evidence is legally insufficient.	State argues the complainant’s testimony, corroboration, and outcry history prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction.
Complainant competency to testify	Torres contends the child lacked understanding of the oath and memory to testify, violating Confrontation Clause concerns.	State maintains the child understood truthfulness and could observe, recall, and narrate.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; complainant competent to testify.
Admission of outcry testimony (aunt and daycare operator)	Statements lack reliability and may be tainted by coaching or manipulation.	Reliability standards under Article 38.072 satisfied; trial court properly weighed time, content, and circumstances.	Outcry statements were reliable; admission not error.
Opinion testimony of two nurses	Nurse opinions and related medical records were improper hearsay and bolstering, violative of Confrontation Clause.	Declarants testified; prior statements admissible; any error is harmless.	Any error harmless; substantial rights not affected.
Mistrial denied based on alleged improper jury argument	Prosecutor’s closing remarks prejudiced the defense.	Objections cured by the court's curative instructions; no extreme prejudice.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; mistrial not warranted.

Key Cases Cited

Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for given verdict)
Wicker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (credibility and appraisal of witness testimony in sufficiency review)
Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (reasonable-doubt standard for appellate review of sufficiency)
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (outcry evidence retains probative value even if contradicted)
Bargas v. State, 252 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (outcry reliability and corroboration as part of admissibility)
Dufrene v. State, 853 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (test for competency of child witnesses and memory considerations)
Long v. State, 770 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (child competency evaluation framework)
Clark v. State, 659 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (competency despite collateral-matters memory gaps)
Shaw v. State, 329 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (reliability review of outcry statements)
Marquez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005) (reliability standard for outcry testimony review)
Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (Confrontation Clause and admissibility of testimonial statements)
Prince v. State, 192 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (preservation of Confrontation Clause challenges)
Stubblefield v. State, 477 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (requirement to preserve Confrontation Clause objections)
Coleman v. State, 966 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (scope of subpoena power and materiality standard)