Background
In 2018, J.B., a child, stayed with her grandparents, Willietroy Black and his wife Debbie, in Waxahachie for three weeks. During that visit, J.B. alleged that Black sexually abused her on two occasions: first, by groping her breast while pulling her into his lap, and second, by inserting his fingers into her vagina in a locked bathroom. J.B. wrote a note to Debbie about the first incident. Debbie reportedly told J.B.’s mother the contact was unintentional and a misunderstanding.
The abuse allegations went unreported for three years. In 2021, when J.B.’s family considered relocating back to Texas, J.B. disclosed the incidents to her mother. J.B. stated she had remained silent because she believed her parents did not care after learning of the first incident. J.B.’s parents reported the allegations, leading to an investigation, forensic interview, and SANE examination. At trial, Black’s adult niece D.H. also testified that Black had sexually abused her beginning around age nine, including repeated incidents of groping her breast.
Black testified that his interactions with J.B. were innocent—involving a water fight that J.B. later claimed was inappropriate contact. He maintained the issue was resolved after he and Debbie spoke with J.B. A jury convicted Black of indecency with a child by sexual contact and assessed his punishment at five years confinement.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court rejected Black’s three arguments on appeal. First, the court held that SANE nurse Emily Mason’s expert testimony—that her findings were consistent with J.B. having been sexually assaulted—was admissible. While experts cannot opine directly on a witness’s truthfulness, they may testify that a witness exhibits symptoms consistent with sexual abuse. The trial court properly allowed Mason to describe J.B.’s reported medical history (sadness, stomachaches, headaches, terrors, self-harm) and whether her clinical findings aligned with sexual abuse.
Second, concerning the exclusion of evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 412 (limiting use of a victim’s sexual history), the court assumed without deciding that excluding evidence of J.B.’s sexual images and messages on her tablet was error, but found any error harmless. Black failed to preserve constitutional arguments (due process and confrontation rights) by not raising them at trial. More fundamentally, Black was able to present his defensive theory—that J.B. had motive to lie because she was upset about discipline—through other testimony about her tablet use and age deception. The court found the excluded evidence would have had only slight effect, if any.
Third, the court rejected Black’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial without holding a hearing. Black failed to adequately request a hearing; his motion did not explicitly request one, and he did not advise the court of his desire for a hearing, thereby failing to preserve the argument for appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Expert testimony describing a child victim’s symptoms consistent with sexual abuse is admissible; it does not impermissibly opine on the victim’s credibility.
- Evidence of a victim’s prior sexual behavior may be excluded under Rule 412 even if the defendant argues it shows motive to lie, provided the defendant can develop that theory through other admissible testimony.
- A defendant must explicitly request a hearing on a motion for new trial and timely notify the trial court of that desire; failure to do so waives the argument on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the admissibility of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Prosecutors may present SANE nurse or similar expert testimony about clinical findings and symptoms consistent with abuse without fear that such testimony crosses the line into impermissible credibility assessment. The ruling thus strengthens prosecutorial tools in cases where physical evidence or corroborating medical findings support a child victim’s allegations.
The opinion also reinforces strict procedural requirements for appellate review. Defendants who fail to request a hearing on a motion for new trial or fail to preserve constitutional arguments at the trial level forfeit those claims on appeal. This underscores that challenges to evidentiary rulings must be made explicitly and timely to preserve appellate review.