Valdemar Bautista v. State
474 S.W.3d 770
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Valdemar Bautista was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child based on disclosures by his daughter (the complainant) and her sister that appellant repeatedly touched and forced sexual acts over a period of 30+ days.
- Initial outcry occurred at school; both girls were interviewed at a Child Advocacy Center and maintained disclosures through therapy and interactions with CPS.
- At a bench trial the complainant, CAC interviewer, school officials, therapist, and caseworker testified; the sister testified for the defense saying the allegations were fabricated to avoid punishment.
- The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to 40 years. Post-trial, the complainant recanted; appellant sought a new trial based on the recantation and alleged Brady/Bagley suppression of medical-exam records.
- The trial court denied motions for continuance and for new trial; appellant appealed raising sufficiency, denial of continuance, alleged suppression of medical evidence, and denial of new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Bautista's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support continuous sexual abuse conviction | Complainant and sister fabricated allegations; lack of physical evidence and inconsistencies make conviction unsupported | Complainant’s consistent outcry, interviews, therapy statements, and trial testimony suffice; credibility is for factfinder | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; credibility resolved for trial court |
| Motion for new trial based on post-trial recantation | Recantation is newly discovered material evidence that would exonerate him | Recantation likely resulted from family pressure; recantation not "probably true" and is impeaching/cumulative | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
| Motion for continuance after complainant mentioned medical exam at trial | Surprise by testimony about a forensic medical exam warranted continuance to obtain records | Defense had notice and opportunity pretrial; defense counsel had access and failed to exercise diligence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no sufficient surprise |
| Brady/Bagley suppression of medical records | State possessed forensic/medical exam results (e.g., intact hymen) and suppressed exculpatory evidence | State maintained open-file policy; no proof it had medical records or that records would be favorable/material | Affirmed — appellant failed to show State withheld material, exculpatory evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (child complainant’s testimony can establish penetration)
- Keeter v. State, 74 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standards for new trial based on recantation/new evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose material, exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality test for suppressed evidence)
- Ex Parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (elements to establish Brady/Bagley violations)
- Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (materiality requirement for suppressed evidence)
- Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (State’s duty to learn of Brady evidence known to others)
- Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (trier of fact is sole judge of witness credibility)