Manuel Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Manuel Rodriguez’s conviction for indecency with a child. The court held that constitutional challenges to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2(b) were not preserved and, alternatively, that the statute was facially constitutional and constitutional as applied. The court also addressed the admission of extraneous-offense evidence involving alleged sexual abuse of another child under article 38.37 and Texas Rule of Evidence 403.

Holdings

1. A defendant must raise and obtain a ruling on both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges in the trial court to preserve them for appellate review. Rodriguez's objections concerning dissimilarity and prejudice did not alert the trial court to his constitutional challenges, so those challenges were forfeited.
2. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2(b) is facially constitutional and does not violate due process.
3. Article 38.37, section 2(b) was not unconstitutionally applied to Rodriguez.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of K.N.'s alleged sexual assault because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rodriguez preserved his facial and as-applied due process challenges to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2(b).
2. Whether article 38.37, section 2(b), which permits admission of certain extraneous sexual-offense evidence against a defendant in a child-sex-offense trial, is facially constitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Whether article 38.37, section 2(b), was unconstitutional as applied to Rodriguez.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting evidence of Rodriguez's alleged separate sexual offense against K.N.

Disposition

affirmed