Roy Guadalupe Cardinas v. State
05-15-01328-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Roy Guadalupe Cardinas was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment; appeal followed.
- The two child complainants were ages eight and seven at trial; the maternal grandmother overheard the children arguing and recorded a conversation on her cellphone.
- Grandmother heard only general statements: Sister mimicked a sex act and said “that’s what Daddy does to us;” complainant said “He tried to do it to me but I told him to stop.” The cellphone recording was later erased.
- At the Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center, a forensic interviewer obtained more specific disclosures: complainant said appellant’s penis touched her vagina over her underwear; Sister described touching to her “front” with appellant’s hands.
- Trial court designated the forensic interviewer as the outcry witness for both girls; defense objected that Grandmother (the first adult told) should be the outcry witness and later argued the article 38.072 hearing was not meaningful.
- The trial court admitted the interviewer’s outcry testimony and overruled objections; the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting the outcry and hearing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forensic interviewer was a proper outcry witness for complainant | State: Grandmother heard only general allusions; interviewer obtained detailed description required by art. 38.072 | Cardinas: Grandmother was the first adult told and thus should be the outcry witness | Court: Forensic interviewer proper; Grandmother’s statements were general allusions, not detailed descriptions required by art. 38.072 |
| Whether the forensic interviewer was a proper outcry witness for Sister | State: Sister’s statements to Grandmother were vague; interviewer obtained specific details of touching | Cardinas: Same objection — Grandmother first adult told; interviewer improper | Court: Forensic interviewer proper for Sister for same reasons; Grandmother’s statements lacked discernable description |
| Whether trial court failed to conduct a meaningful art. 38.072 hearing for Sister’s outcry | Cardinas: Hearing was inadequate; court didn’t make required findings | State: Record shows hearings and testimony; no preservation of complaint on hearing adequacy | Court: Issue not preserved — defense limited objection at trial to designation, not to adequacy of hearing; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial court has broad discretion in identifying outcry witness)
- Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (proper outcry witness generally the first adult told how, when, and where)
- Thomas v. State, 309 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (later recipient may be proper outcry witness when initial statement is only a general allusion)
- Sims v. State, 12 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (general allusion to abuse is insufficient under art. 38.072)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (error preservation is a systemic requirement on appeal)
- Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate issue not preserved when trial objection does not comport with appellate complaint)