Javier Solis v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-12-00529-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 24, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Javier Solis appeals his conviction for indecency with a child by contact, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed two witnesses to testify about statements made by his biological daughter, the complainant. The daughter's revelations followed inquiries by her mother, prompted by a relative’s encouragement, in which she disclosed that Solis had 'raped' and 'molested' her, detailing inappropriate touching of her private areas. During a forensic interview, she recounted multiple instances of molestation between the ages of nine and thirteen, describing how Solis would enter her bedroom at night and perform various indecent acts, including touching her breasts and making genital contact without penetration, as well as instances of penetration. The State charged Solis with aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen and indecency with a child by contact, specifying the nature of the alleged actions in the indictment. Prior to trial, the State notified Solis of its intent to present the outcry testimonies of both the mother and the forensic interviewer, summarizing the daughter’s allegations of ongoing abuse since age nine. The State's notice included a handwritten statement from the mother detailing the daughter's emotional response and her reluctance to discuss the abuse, along with a summary of the interviewer's findings regarding the daughter's disclosures of sexual acts committed by Solis.

Prior to the testimonies of Mother and Interviewer at trial, the court held hearings to assess their eligibility under the outcry-witness exception to hearsay as outlined in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.072. During Mother’s hearing, she recounted asking Daughter, prompted by her niece, if Solis had inappropriately touched her. Mother testified that Daughter, through tears, claimed Solis had 'raped' and 'molested' her since age nine, specifically noting that such actions occurred while Mother was at work. The trial court deemed Mother's testimony admissible under the outcry-witness exception.

Later, in a separate hearing for Interviewer, she described how Daughter provided detailed accounts of Solis's actions, including removing her clothing and inappropriate touching. Solis objected to Interviewer’s testimony, arguing it was redundant and constituted hearsay. The State countered that Daughter’s statements to both Mother and Interviewer represented a 'rolling outcry,' with Interviewer receiving more elaborate details. The court allowed Interviewer to testify, which she did in front of the jury.

During trial, Daughter testified that Solis had begun abusing her when she was nine, detailing the frequency and nature of the molestation, including digital and attempted penetration. Daughter noted her fear of reporting the incidents. Solis testified, claiming the accusations were fabricated due to Daughter's dislike of his wife, asserting his affection for her. The jury convicted Solis of indecency with a child but acquitted him of aggravated sexual assault, sentencing him to ten years in prison and a $3,600 fine, leading to this appeal.

Solis contends that the trial court erred by permitting Mother's testimony regarding what Daughter allegedly disclosed about Solis's inappropriate behavior. He argues that Mother's niece, who was over eighteen at the time, should have been the outcry witness instead, or alternatively, that Mother's testimony lacked the specificity required under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072. The State counters that there is no evidence that Daughter disclosed anything to the niece and asserts that both Mother and Interviewer provided sufficient testimony on the charges. The court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Mother's testimony, as it did not provide specific details regarding the allegations. The standard for reviewing such decisions is abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court misapplies the law or fails to analyze it correctly. Article 38.072 allows hearsay exceptions for statements made by a child or disabled victim to the first adult they disclose the offense to, requiring the testimony to be event-specific, detailing the alleged offense beyond a general allusion. Proper outcry statements must include discernible descriptions of the offense, including specifics such as the "how, when, or where" of the alleged acts.

The child's statements to Burkett met statutory requirements, providing necessary details about how, when, and where the appellant touched her, essential for proving penetration in aggravated sexual assault cases. In instances of multiple sexual assaults, more than one outcry witness may be permitted, provided each witness's testimony pertains to different events rather than repetitive accounts of the same incident. The court referenced *Brown*, where vague statements made by a child to both a 9-1-1 operator and a police officer were deemed insufficient due to a lack of specific details. In the present case, while the State argued that Mother's and Interviewer's testimonies addressed different charges, the record indicated that Mother's testimony lacked specific details to substantiate either the indecency or assault charges. In contrast, Daughter's statements to Interviewer contained critical details necessary for both charges. Consequently, Daughter's statements to Mother were found to be general allusions to sexual abuse without the required specificity. The trial court erred in allowing Mother's testimony. Regarding Interviewer's testimony, Solis contended it violated Article 38.072 as Mother was deemed the proper outcry witness. However, it was established that Interviewer was the appropriate witness because she provided detailed accounts of the offenses. Therefore, the trial court's decision to allow Interviewer's testimony was upheld.

The court evaluated whether the trial court's error in admitting Mother's hearsay testimony, despite Interviewer being the proper outcry witness, harmed the defendant Solis. The erroneous admission was classified as a non-constitutional error warranting a harm analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). An error affects substantial rights if it significantly influences the jury's verdict, while it does not if there is assurance the error had minimal impact. The court reviewed the entire record, including the nature of the evidence and jury instructions. Mother's hearsay indicated that Daughter claimed Solis had "raped" and "molested" her, but Daughter provided detailed testimony about the alleged incidents, corroborated by Interviewer's testimony. The court concluded that the admission of Mother's hearsay did not substantially affect the jury's decision and therefore disregarded the error. Consequently, after addressing Solis's points, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.