Victor Eric Miranda v. the State of Texas
02-23-00324-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 26, 2025Background
- Victor Eric Miranda was convicted by a jury for indecency with a child by sexual contact involving his daughter, N.R.M., age 7.
- The accusation arose after the child told her mother that Miranda had touched her inappropriately during a custody visit.
- Following the child’s outcry, a police investigation and a forensic interview substantiated the abuse claims.
- At trial, the State amended the indictment, changing the alleged offense date from November 11, 2021, to November 6, 2021.
- The State also offered testimony from another relative, C.J., alleging a similar prior offense by Miranda; the judge admitted this under Article 38.37.
- Miranda appealed, raising issues related to testimony readback, indictment amendment, and admission of extraneous-offense evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Miranda's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readback of testimony to jury | Court erred by reading back testimony without confirmation of jury dispute | Jury's narrowed request was sufficient; court acted properly | No abuse of discretion; overruling |
| Amendment of indictment (offense date) | Court erred in allowing date change; impaired defense/prep | Miranda agreed to amendment; "on or about" date covered both days | Miranda forfeited complaint; no prejudice |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (C.J.) | Testimony highly prejudicial, outweighing probative value | State needed to bolster credibility of main witness; proper notice | Admissible; court performed proper balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (clarifies Article 36.28 purpose and jury disagreement for readback)
- Robison v. State, 888 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (details standard for reading back testimony and required procedures)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (explains abuse of discretion standard; Rule 403 analysis)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (reviews standard for evidentiary rulings)
- De la Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (upholds correct evidentiary rulings even if reasoning differs)