Roberto Silvas v. State
08-14-00147-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Appellant Roberto Silvas was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by sexual contact and aggravated sexual assault of a child; sentences: 20 and 35 years imprisonment.
- Alleged victim J.E. was eleven when incidents occurred; she testified to multiple inappropriate touching and attempted sexual contact by Silvas; Silvas testified and denied the allegations.
- Defense sought to call Judy Ackers as an expert on child interviewing/therapy; voir dire revealed Ackers was not a forensic interviewer and the trial court limited her testimony to her therapeutic/interviewing expertise. Defense ultimately did not call Ackers to testify.
- After jury deliberations began, the presiding juror reported that "one of the jurors works at the [Child Advocacy] Center;" the court checked juror forms and declined further inquiry.
- Defense moved for mistrial alleging juror nondisclosure and outside influence (juror advocacy for the Child Advocacy Center and connection to the State's witness, forensic interviewer Joe Zimmerly); the trial court denied the mistrial.
- On appeal, Silvas challenged (1) exclusion/limitation of his expert’s testimony and (2) the denial of a mistrial based on juror nondisclosure and alleged outside influence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defense expert testimony (Ackers) | Ackers was qualified in child interviewing/therapy and should be allowed to opine that Zimmerly's forensic interview was leading and amateurish. | Trial court properly limited Ackers to therapeutic/interviewing expertise and refused to allow forensic interviewing opinions given her lack of forensic credentials; court did not exclude her entirely. | No abuse of discretion. Court limited scope appropriately; record shows court would permit the concerns Ackers raised; issue overruled. |
| Mistrial for juror nondisclosure of employment at Child Advocacy Center | Juror withheld material information during voir dire, preventing effective jury selection and violating Sixth Amendment rights. | Record does not show any juror (including the presiding juror) actually worked at or was associated with the Center; no proof of nondisclosure. | No abuse of discretion. No evidence a juror withheld material information; issue overruled. |
| Mistrial for alleged outside influence (juror advocacy/connection to State witness) | Knowledge that a juror worked with the State's key witness (Zimmerly) or with the Advocacy Center tainted the jury and constituted an outside influence requiring mistrial. | There is no evidence any juror relayed outside information, advocated in deliberations, or had ties to Zimmerly or the Center; allegations are unsubstantiated. | No abuse of discretion. Lack of evidence of outside influence or impact on verdict; issue overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard: appellate review of expert-admissibility rulings is abuse of discretion)
- Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (mistrial is an extraordinary remedy; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (factors to weigh in mistrial inquiry: severity, curative measures, certainty of conviction)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (same framework for assessing misconduct and mistrial)
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (juror-conduct involving outside information may require post-trial inquiry and can constitute outside influence)
- Franklin v. State, 138 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (juror nondisclosure of material information can violate defendant's right to an impartial jury)