Ronald James Bias v. the State of Texas, 03-20-00164-CR

Ronald James Bias was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Tex. Pen. Code § 22.021) and sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively.
Victim J.B., under 14, alleged multiple incidents including oral contact, digital/genital contact, and penetration by Bias while her mother worked; allegations first led to forensic and SANE examinations (no acute injuries found because of delay).
The State designated Alexandria Wright as the Article 38.072 outcry witness; at the pretrial outcry hearing Wright testified J.B. disclosed detailed abuse to her and that J.B. had not told anyone before Wright.
The defense obtained and later admitted J.B.’s forensic-interview recording, in which J.B. said she first told a grandmother ("Grandma Brenda") about the abuse; the recording was provided to the defense more than a year before trial.
At trial Wright and J.B. testified consistently with the outcry hearing and forensic interview; the jury convicted. On appeal Bias argued (1) Wright was an improper outcry witness and her testimony violated his confrontation/due-process rights, and (2) he should have been sentenced under the indecency-with-a-child statute (in pari materia argument).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bias)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Outcry witness / Confrontation & due process	Wright was not the first person J.B. told (forensic interview shows grandmother); State knowingly presented a wrong outcry witness, violating confrontation and due process.	Wright’s testimony described the necessary "how, when, where"; J.B. testified Wright was first; defense had full cross-examination; no showing Wright’s testimony was false or material.	Affirmed. Court declined to find false testimony or constitutional violation on this record; issue not preserved by specific objection and record insufficient to show harm.
In pari materia / sentencing statute	Indictment was amended to remove "penetrate," so alleged conduct fits indecency-with-child statute; Bias should be punished under the more specific statute.	Claim was not presented to trial court (forfeited); sentence falls within indecency statute range and consecutive sentences were available; no relief warranted.	Affirmed. Court held the claim was forfeited for appellate review and, in any event, Bias’s sentence was within the statutory range that would apply under indecency.

Ex parte Robbins, 360 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (false-testimony/due-process materiality standard)
Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (outcry admissibility requires statement that "in some discernible manner describes the alleged offense")
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (multiple outcry witnesses permissible for separate acts)
Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Article 38.072 hearing does not give full opportunity to test credibility for confrontation purposes when live testimony is unavailable)
Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation required to claim greater protection under Texas due-course provision)
Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (example of preserving an in pari materia claim)
Diruzzo v. State, 581 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (discussing preservation of in pari materia arguments)
Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (corroboration can reduce materiality of undisclosed evidence)
Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (proper outcry witness is first adult told who relates the "how, when, and where")