Roel David Gonzalez v. State, 522 S.W.3d 48

Background

Roel David Gonzalez lived with Mother and her three daughters (Alice, Belle, Cici); Cici was about 8–9 when alleged assaults occurred in 2009–2010. Mother and daughters became estranged from Gonzalez after a violent incident involving thrown beer containers.
Cici testified that Gonzalez put his mouth on her genitals and on another occasion inserted two fingers into her vagina; Belle testified she awoke to Gonzalez trying to unzip her shorts and saw him approach Cici with a flashlight.
Forensic interviews of all three girls were recorded at the Children’s Assessment Center; defense counsel and a retained expert viewed the videos but the trial court (pursuant to Article 39.15) denied the defense copies—videos were admitted and played to the jury in rebuttal.
Medical exams disclosed no observable genital injury; treating physicians documented parental concern and referrals but no physical findings inconsistent with recent healed injuries.
At trial defense impeached the girls with inconsistencies between live testimony and their forensic interviews; the jury convicted Gonzalez of aggravated sexual assault of a child (mouth-to-genitals) and indecency with a child (finger penetration) and assessed 20 and 5 years’ confinement, concurrent.
On appeal Gonzalez raised (1) legal insufficiency, (2) Article 39.15 unconstitutionality/Confrontation Clause violation based on lack of copies, and (3–5) claims the prosecutor made improper jury arguments (including injecting facts and striking over defense counsel’s shoulders).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated sexual assault and indecency	Evidence is too inconsistent and motivated by girls’ hostility after beer-bottle incident; convictions are not supported beyond a reasonable doubt	Victim testimony, forensic interviews, and medical/other evidence suffice; jury resolves conflicts	Affirmed — victim’s uncorroborated testimony alone sufficient; viewed in light most favorable to verdict
Article 39.15 access to forensic interviews (copies) — statutory compliance	Denial of copies prevented adequate preparation and confrontation; statute as applied violated confrontation and due process	Defense counsel and expert had ample opportunity to view videos per Article 39.15(d); statute reasonably limits copying	Affirmed — access was “reasonable” under Article 39.15 and did not violate Confrontation Clause as applied
Confrontation Clause / Davis line — need to test bias via copies	Davis requires disclosure when probative of witness bias; inability to copy hampered impeachment	Courts have limited Davis to its facts; defense was able to confront witnesses using viewed interviews	Affirmed — Davis inapplicable here; defense could effectively impeach without copies
Prosecutor injected facts outside record ("bashed her head in with a beer bottle")	Statement introduced harmful new fact not in evidence and required mistrial	Argument was a permissible inference from testimony about bottles and injuries; trial court cured error with instruction	Affirmed — trial court’s curative instruction presumed effective; no reversible error
Prosecutor’s "Don't feel bad about your verdict" comment — struck over counsel’s shoulders?	Comment improperly attacked defense and jury reflection; instruction insufficient so mistrial required	Defense’s closing invited response; comment addressed defense argument not counsel’s integrity; court sustained and instructed jurors to disregard	Affirmed — comment invited by defense argument and instruction cured any harm

Key Cases Cited

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (constitutional sufficiency standard)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (Sup. Ct.) (acquittal as only proper verdict standard)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on conflicting evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sup. Ct.) (Confrontation Clause principles)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Sup. Ct.) (juvenile-record cross-examination on bias)
Carmona v. State, 698 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (Davis limited to its facts; effective cross-examination doctrine)
Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (need for logical connection between impeachment evidence and witness testimony)