William Owens v. State, 381 S.W.3d 696

Owens was convicted by a Bowie County jury of sexually assaulting his four-year-old daughter and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine.
On appeal, Owens challenged Brady/Government disclosure, the outcry exception under Article 38.072, the nurse examiner’s evidence, an officer’s testimony about the child’s truthfulness, and sufficiency after the child’s recantation.
The State contested discovery, arguing no Brady violation and that the Speight file was not exculpatory or material.
The State used Missy Stout Davison as the outcry witness; the defense argued the mother or grandmother should be the proper outcry witness.
The nurse examiner testified no physical trauma was found; the defense argued irrelevance but the court admitted the testimony as relevant.
The court held that the remaining points of error were unpersuasive and affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation alleged for Speight file	Owens asserts undisclosed Speight file was exculpatory	State contends Speight file not exculpatory or material	No Brady error; Speight file not exculpatory; discovery limits respected
Outcry witness and notice sufficiency	Davison not proper outcry witness; mother/grandmother should be	Davison was proper; notices adequate	Davison proper; outcry notice sufficient
Relevance of SANE nurse testimony	Nurse testimony was irrelevant	Testimony was relevant to explain lack of physical trauma and context	No abuse of discretion; testimony admissible and relevant
Officer’s testimony about child’s truthfulness	Officer’s belief about truthfulness improper bolstering	Curative instruction would cure any error	Curative instruction to disregard was effective; no reversible error
Sufficiency after victim recantation	Recantation undermines the conviction	Jury may resolve conflicts; evidence sufficient	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (federal due-process standard for discovery of exculpatory material)
Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (due-process materiality standard for undisclosed favorable evidence)
Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (materiality of undisclosed information; timing and notice considerations)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (probability the result would differ with disclosed evidence)
Gowan v. State, 927 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (limits on compelled disclosure and materiality)
Palmer v. State, 902 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (scope of discovery and Brady obligations)