Talkington, Kevin D., PD-0658-15

Defendant Kevin Talkington was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact; sentences: 40 years on assault counts, 15 years on indecency counts, concurrent.
The child-victim (Jane) testified at trial describing multiple instances of oral, digital, penile, and anal contact by Talkington.
Two adult Child Protective Services (CPS) employees—Jennifer Abbott (first interviewer) and Joy Hallum (forensic interviewer)—testified as outcry witnesses under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.072 about statements Jane made to them describing the abuse.
Defense objected that Hallum’s outcry testimony duplicated Abbott’s and therefore was inadmissible as to the same event; the trial court overruled the objection after an outcry hearing.
The Second Court of Appeals assumed, without deciding, that admitting Hallum’s testimony may have been error but held any error harmless because Jane’s own in-court testimony and the recorded interview proved the same facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two outcry witnesses may both testify about the same instance of abuse	Talkington: admission of Hallum’s testimony was improper because Abbott was the first adult outcry recipient for that event; only the first adult may testify about a single event	State: both outcry witnesses’ testimony described the offense and duplicated facts proved by the victim, so any error was harmless	Court of Appeals: assumed possible error but held admission harmless because victim’s testimony and recorded interview established the same facts
Whether admission of duplicative outcry testimony is harmless when declarant testifies	Talkington: duplicative hearsay compounds harm by allowing repeated presentation of the child’s statements and bolstering credibility	State: duplicative testimony is harmless if the declarant testified to same facts without objection	Court of Appeals: error (if any) was nonconstitutional and harmless when other unobjected evidence proved same facts

Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (outcry evidence must be to first adult recipient for a single event)
Long v. State, 800 S.W.2d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (hearsay inadmissible except as provided by statute)
Broderick v. State, 35 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000) (only one proper outcry witness for a single event; multiple outcry witnesses allowed for different events)
Reynolds v. State, 227 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007) (discussion of outcry witness limitations)
Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (standard for harmless nonconstitutional error)
Bargas v. State, 252 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (victim’s testimony sufficient to support conviction despite rough terminology)
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (outcry evidence admissible as substantive evidence)