Santos Aquileo Cruz-Escalante v. State
491 S.W.3d 857
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Santos Cruz-Escalante was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 20 years’ confinement.
- The complainant (age six at interview) testified she was lured by a neighbor, taken upstairs, sexually assaulted, and later identified appellant in a photographic array.
- A forensic interviewer and the complainant’s father related similar accounts; a pediatrician found ano-genital warts consistent with sexual contact after birth.
- Officer Estrada investigated; appellant denied the conduct and no DNA link was established.
- At trial appellant sought to cross-examine the complainant’s father about a post‑incident custody dispute between the child’s parents; the court limited that inquiry.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the limitation violated his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limiting cross-examination about a custody dispute violated the defendant’s confrontation/right to present a defense | The State argued the limitation was within the court’s discretion to exclude collateral, prejudicial evidence | Cruz-Escalante argued the custody dispute would show motive/bias for the father’s testimony and bolster his defensive theory | Any error in limiting the cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting evidence)
- Tarley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (review of trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Van Arsdall v. Maryland, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error framework for improper limitation of cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (right to present a defense)
- Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (application of Van Arsdall in Texas)
- Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (scope of cross-examination to show witness motive/bias)
- Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (permissible limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment or confusion)
- Koehler v. State, 679 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (preservation: offers of proof and required specificity for excluded testimony)
- Montgomery v. State, 383 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (harmless-error where excluded testimony was cumulative)