Sean Quinn Julian v. State
13-15-00176-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Appellant Sean Quinn Julian was indicted for indecency with a child by contact (alleged touching of his 15‑year‑old daughter). A jury found him guilty and the court sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The complainant testified Julian lay behind her under a blanket, rubbed her breasts under her bra, and she felt his erect penis on her back as he moved toward her panty line.
- The State sought to admit extraneous‑offense evidence: testimony from Julian’s older daughter alleging repeated molestation in a similar manner, and a police officer’s testimony as to Julian’s admission he groped that daughter beneath her clothing.
- Julian objected, arguing he had not “opened the door” to extraneous‑offense evidence and that the State’s proffer relied only on a vague modus operandi theory. The trial court admitted the evidence.
- On appeal, Julian argued the admission was improper under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b); the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Julian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous‑offense evidence under Rule 404(b) | Evidence was admissible to show modus operandi and to rebut defensive theories that the complainant fabricated the allegation | Julian argued he did not open the door; State failed to specify a proper non‑character purpose and relied on vague modus operandi | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: Julian’s cross‑examination raised physical‑impossibility and fabrication theories that opened the door; extraneous acts showed a consistent modus operandi and were admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admission of extraneous‑offense evidence)
- Dabney v. State, 492 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (defendant opens the door to extraneous evidence by presenting defensive theories the State may rebut)
- Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous evidence admissible to rebut fabrication theory; relevance beyond character conformity)
- Owens v. State, 827 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (modus operandi admissibility when it tends to prove a material issue)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (proponent’s burden to show non‑character relevance for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (validity of using modus operandi under Rule 404(b))