Mark Anthony Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Second Court of Appeals affirmed Mark Anthony Rodriguez’s conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. The court held that the evidence was sufficient because the jury could credit the child’s testimony and that the trial court acted within its discretion in addressing a misleading question concerning an alleged prior exoneration. The court modified the judgment to delete an unpronounced $100 statutory fine and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Rodriguez's conviction because a rational jury could believe the child's testimony and find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez touched her genitals. The child's uncorroborated testimony alone could support the conviction, and the additional evidence further supported the verdict.
2. The trial court did not commit reversible error by intervening to address Rodriguez's misleading question, explaining that pursuing the question could open the door to responsive evidence, and permitting counsel to withdraw and clarify the question.
3. The trial court erred by including a $100 statutory fine in the written judgment when the fine was not orally pronounced as part of Rodriguez's sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Rodriguez's conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact.
2. Whether the trial court violated Rodriguez's rights or Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.05 by intervening when counsel asked a misleading question concerning a prior case involving the forensic interviewer, commenting outside the jury's presence, and explaining the evidentiary consequences of pursuing the question.
3. Whether the written judgment improperly included a $100 statutory fine that was not orally pronounced as part of Rodriguez's sentence.

Disposition

affirmed