Shaw v. State
329 S.W.3d 645
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Appellant Eddie Shaw was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine.
- Jane, a child victim, testified about repeated sexual abuse by Shaw beginning when she was seven or eight.
- Jane became pregnant by Shaw around age eleven and later gave birth to a son; paternity was later established as Shaw.
- The State introduced DNA evidence from buccal swabs showing a 99.99% probability Shaw was the father of Jane's child.
- Evidence included an outcry witness (the school principal) and police/DNA handling witnesses to establish the abuse narrative and chain of custody.
- Shaw challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence through multiple trial objections and post-trial arguments, but the court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Ruiz's testimony about Jane's outcry was relevant | Shaw contends it bolstered credibility | Ruiz testified about behavior of abuse victims to aid understanding | No abuse of discretion; testimony was relevant |
| Whether Fisch's outcry testimony was admissible | Outcry testimony satisfied statute elements | Fisch was not the first adult to hear a detailed description | Harmless error; misstatement not affecting verdict |
| Chain of custody of DNA evidence was adequately proven | Chain was incomplete due to unnamed intermediaries | Beginning and end of chain proven; no tampering shown | Admissible; weight goes to credibility, not admissibility |
| Whether Bullock’s paternity testimony required a Rule 705(b) voir dire on reliability | Rule 705(b) necessity not satisfied; reliability questioned | No preserved reliability objection; 705(b) hearing occurred | Not preserved; issue overruled |
| Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient | DNA evidence supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficiency should be weighed against credibility and alternative explanations | Evidence legally sufficient; DNA not required for conviction; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (testimony on victim behavior admissible to aid understanding of abuse)
- Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (expert testimony about victim behavior admissible to corroborate abuse)
- Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (outcry witness reliability standards for statements)
- Nino v. State, 223 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (harmlessness of improper outcry testimony when other strong evidence exists)
- Reed v. State, 974 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) (characterization of describing offense in outcry context)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (redefines standard for appellate sufficiency review (legal sufficiency))