Sanchez v. State
335 S.W.3d 256
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Ivan Sanchez was convicted by a jury of three counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child in Bexar County.
- The State designated Jennifer Guzman as the outcry witness on September 11, 2007, but later designated Angelica Newsome and Terry Melendez as outcry witnesses after review of records.
- Newsome testified at a May 20, 2009 pretrial hearing about the complainant’s outcry; Guzman testified at trial, and Guzman’s handwritten notes were admitted over objection.
- The trial court accepted Newsome as the proper outcry witness; Guzman did not testify at trial due to unavailability.
- The defense argued Guzman’s outcry testimony and notes were improper hearsay and an improper outcry; the State argued Guzman’s testimony could be admissible as a prior consistent statement if applicable.
- During trial, the jury heard extensive testimony from a sexual assault nurse examiner and the complainant detailing the sexual abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guzman was a proper outcry witness | Sanchez | Sanchez | Guzman not proper; trial court erred admitting her testimony and notes |
| Whether the improper outcry testimony was harmless | Sanchez | Sanchez | Harmless error; other witnesses testified without objection and same facts were admitted |
| Whether Newsome's pretrial testimony violated confrontation rights when read at trial | Sanchez | Sanchez | No Sixth Amendment violation; substantial similarity of motive allowed admission under Rule 804(b)(1) |
| Whether Sanchez was denied a speedy trial | Sanchez | Sanchez | No speedy-trial violation; factors weighed in State's favor overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. State, 150 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (trial court has broad discretion on outcry witnesses)
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (outcry must describe the offense; event-specific analysis)
- Broderick v. State, 35 S.W.3d 67 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000) (multiple outcry witnesses allowed if about different events)
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (indecency with a child as part of offense; related evidence)
- Duncan v. State, 95 S.W.3d 669 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (harmless error when same facts admitted without objection)
- Thomas v. State, 1 S.W.3d 138 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999) (prior testimony admissible where relevant and properly admitted)
- Norris v. State, 788 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990) (reliability indicators of outcry statements; prompting/manipulation)
- Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (confrontation analysis for prior testimony admissibility)
- Martinez v. State, 276 S.W.3d 75 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (pretrial outcry issues; motive to falsify)