Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Albert Alfonso Garza v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-09-00828-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 6, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Albert Alfonso Garza was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child. He challenged the trial court's admission of evidence regarding two extraneous offenses and the refusal to provide a reasonable doubt instruction concerning those offenses. The court determined that the additional offenses were not extraneous and upheld the trial court's decision. Garza was indicted in December 2008 for allegedly performing oral sex on an eight-year-old boy on June 30, 2006. During an interview before trial, the complainant revealed that Garza may have assaulted him on two prior occasions. The prosecutor informed Garza on the trial's morning about the intention to introduce this testimony, which Garza contested due to lack of notice and requested a continuance, both of which were denied by the trial court. The complainant testified that during a family visit in summer 2006, Garza allowed him to play a video game only if he removed his clothes, after which the assault occurred. He later disclosed two other assaults to the prosecutor, which also took place in the same location but did not involve him performing oral sex on Garza. The jury was instructed that evidence of the prior offenses was not to establish Garza's character but to assess his state of mind and the nature of his relationship with the complainant. Garza objected to the jury charge for lacking a reasonable doubt instruction regarding the prior offenses, but the court overruled this objection. The jury found Garza guilty and sentenced him to ten years' confinement, which was suspended in favor of five years of community supervision. Appellant's arguments hinge on the premise that two prior assaults were extraneous to the charged crime. He contends that the State failed to provide adequate notice for introducing evidence of these extraneous offenses, which resulted in an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying his motion for continuance. Appellant also claims that the trial court should have included a reasonable doubt instruction in the jury charge regarding these offenses. Both issues are overruled because the prior offenses are not considered extraneous. The definition of an extraneous offense does not apply simply based on stipulation during the trial; rather, it is based on whether the misconduct is reflected in the charging documents. The indictment charged appellant with an offense alleged to have occurred on or about June 30, 2006, and the law allows for flexibility regarding the specific date of the alleged offense. The prior offenses occurred prior to or during the summer of 2006, and since they fall within the statute of limitations and the time frame of the indictment, they are not extraneous. Consequently, the prosecutor was not obligated to provide prior notice, and the trial court acted within its discretion by denying the continuance request. Additionally, because the offenses are included within the indictment, the case does not require a reasonable doubt instruction as per established legal precedent. Appellant had the option to request an election of the specific occurrences for conviction, which he did not do. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.