Roland Blake Fears v. State, 479 S.W.3d 315

Background

Appellant Ronald Blake Fears was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse/assault and indecency with a child based on allegations by his stepdaughter C.T.; judge assessed sentences (50 years on Count I, 20 years on others). The State abandoned one aggravated-count before close.
Initial outcry: C.T. (14 at outcry) told a friend and family members she had been sexually abused since age eight; statements were given to police, CPS investigator Francisco (Frank) Lopez, and a forensic interviewer at Maggie’s House (recorded video).
Lopez prepared an eight-page CPS report and audio recordings of interviews (C.T. and her sister B.F.); defense sought the report under Tex. R. Evid. 615 and continuances to review materials; trial court initially withheld CPS file for confidentiality, later conducted in camera review and disclosed portions.
State played portions of Lopez’s recordings and the Maggie’s House video; B.F. testified inconsistently with her recorded statement, and the recording was admitted to impeach her.
Defense challenged multiple rulings on continuances, disclosure (Rule 615 vs. Tex. Fam. Code §261.201), alleged Brady violations for late disclosure, admission of prior consistent statements (Maggie’s House video), impeachment procedure, failure to subpoena a justice of the peace, prosecutor/judge voir dire remarks, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of continuances to review CPS materials	Counsel needed time to review Lopez’s report/recordings; denial prejudiced cross-examination	Motions were untimely, some unwritten/unsworn; did not show unexpected occurrence or inability to anticipate	No abuse of discretion; written/signed requirements and art. 29.13 not satisfied, no preserved error for some motions
Rule 615 production of Lopez report	Defense sought report under Tex. R. Evid. 615 for impeachment	CPS report is confidential under Tex. Fam. Code §261.201; defense did not follow statutory in camera/release procedures	Court did not err; defense must follow §261.201 procedures before Rule 615 production enforced
Brady violation for late disclosure of Lopez report/recordings	Late disclosure suppressed favorable impeachment material that was material to guilt	Disclosed mid-trial; contents largely consistent and not materially favorable; defense had opportunity to recall witness	No Brady violation: evidence not shown to be favorable/material and no prejudice shown from timing
Interaction between Brady and §261.201 confidentiality	State should proactively disclose all Brady material instead of relying on confidentiality	Ritchie/Thomas permit in camera review by trial court to balance confidentiality and disclosure	Court follows Ritchie/Thomas: in camera review appropriate; appellant’s argument rejected
Admission of B.F. recorded interview for impeachment (predicate)	State did not properly lay predicate under Tex. R. Evid. 613(a)	State notified B.F. of contents/time/place and gave opportunity to admit/deny; then introduced recording	Proper predicate laid; admission of prior inconsistent statement was permissible
Request for limiting instruction on B.F. recording	Defense requested limitation to jury (prevent broader use)	No contemporaneous request for limiting instruction at admission; request came later	No error: party opposing evidence must request limiting instruction at time of admission
Admission of Maggie’s House video as prior consistent statement	Video inadmissible unless it rebuts an express/implied charge of recent fabrication under Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(1)(c)	Defense’s cross-examination implied fabrication/alteration; video was consistent and rebutted that suggestion	Not an abuse of discretion to admit; court found implied charge of fabrication and trial court acted within discretion
Calling Justice of the Peace Garza as witness re: magistrate’s mental processes	Appellant sought Garza to testify why probable-cause affidavit was insufficient	Judicial mental processes are protected; no threshold showing of improper conduct to justify testimony	Trial court properly refused; defendant made no showing of improper conduct or extraordinary circumstances
Admission of Natalie’s testimony referencing appellant’s behavior around girls (Rule 404/403/402)	Testimony introduced impermissible extraneous-bad-act evidence	State limited testimony; trial court allowed brief testimony; evidence minor and not emphasized	Any error harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); no reversal warranted
Alleged burden-shifting and improper comments during voir dire by judge/prosecutor	Comments by judge and prosecutor shifted burden or were prejudicial	Remarks read in context reiterated State’s burden; prosecutor’s voir dire sought jurors willing to hear uncomfortable evidence, not to shift burden	No fundamental error; comments not so egregious as to show bias or to shift burden of proof
Cumulative error	Aggregate of all asserted errors requires reversal	Most issues rejected; the one possible error was harmless	No cumulative error; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (holding State must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (in camera review of child-protection files proper to reconcile confidentiality and disclosure)
Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (trial court need not segregate admissible/inadmissible portions of recordings absent request)
Hammons v. State, 239 S.W.3d 798 (trial court’s discretion on admitting prior consistent statements where fabrication implied)
Little v. State, 991 S.W.2d 864 (timeliness of Brady disclosure and effective use inquiry)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (materiality standard for Brady—reasonable probability that outcome would differ)
Thomas v. State, 837 S.W.2d 106 (in camera inspection balances State confidentiality and defendant’s rights)
Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (standard of review for continuance rulings)