Johnny Delagarza v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-19-00406-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 29, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Johnny Delagarza, who was charged with Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in confinement. Delagarza raised three issues on appeal, all concerning the admission of evidence during the trial related to testimony by Shelley Scott, a forensic interviewer. He claimed that the admission of this testimony violated his constitutional right to a fair trial, that he was not required to preserve error at trial due to the nature of the alleged error, and that he suffered harm from it.

The testimony in question involved the concept of "grooming" behavior and the phenomena of delayed and partial outcries in child sexual abuse cases, which Scott explained as common occurrences based on her extensive experience. Delagarza did not object to this testimony at trial and did not file a motion for new trial. He argued that Scott's testimony relied on the discredited psychological theory known as “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome” (CSAAS), which he deemed unreliable. However, the State maintained that Scott’s testimony was not based on CSAAS, as she was never questioned about it, and there was no evidence in the record to support Delagarza's claim. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the State, affirming the trial court's decision.

The State asserts that testimony regarding grooming and delayed or partial outcries from child victims is permissible in Texas and contends that Appellant failed to preserve his argument for appellate review. To preserve a complaint, a party must make a contemporaneous objection in the trial court, as outlined in Texas law. This requirement serves two primary purposes: it informs the trial judge of the objection's basis for ruling and allows opposing counsel the chance to address the objection or provide alternative testimony. Timely and sustained objections facilitate lawful trials, while failing to object can lead to appeals and retrials.

Appellant argues that his trial attorney was not required to object to the testimony to preserve his complaint, claiming a "fundamental error" that falls under Rule 103(e) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. This rule allows courts to recognize fundamental errors affecting substantial rights even if not properly preserved. Fundamental errors are limited to two categories: violations of waivable-only rights and denials of absolute systemic requirements. Waivable-only rights, like the right to counsel and jury trial, mandate the trial court to enforce them unless explicitly waived. Systemic requirements, such as personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, cannot be waived.

However, the admission or exclusion of evidence does not fall into either category of fundamental error. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently ruled that failing to timely and specifically object during trial forfeits complaints about evidence admissibility, regardless of whether it concerns a constitutional right.

Appellant failed to timely object to witness Scott’s testimony regarding grooming and delayed outcries, resulting in the forfeiture of his right to challenge this evidence on appeal. Appellant argues that the prosecutor, defense counsel, and trial court contributed to the admission of improper evidence, but typically, appellate issues focus on trial court errors rather than opposing counsel's conduct. Prosecutorial misconduct, which could warrant overturning a conviction, was not present in this case. Appellant did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that such a claim is not viable at this stage without trial counsel's explanation of her strategy. Legal precedent indicates that ineffective assistance does not excuse the failure to preserve error, and the Fort Worth Court of Appeals has confirmed that defective performance by counsel is not considered fundamental error.

Regarding the trial court's role, Appellant contends the court had a duty to exclude Scott’s testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 103(d). However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has clarified that trial judges do not have an independent obligation to exclude inadmissible evidence unless prompted by a litigant. The responsibility to assert a forfeitable right lies with the parties, not the court. Consequently, since Appellant did not preserve error, his evidentiary complaint cannot be considered on appeal, leading to the overruling of his claims and the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The ruling was issued by Chief Justice John M. Bailey on December 30, 2021.