The following is a summary of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals from May 2024. The summary is an overview; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent history is current as of November 5, 2024.
EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY — Prior abuse allegations and testimony as to truthfulness. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting cross-examination of victim regarding prior abuse allegations but abused its discretion by allowing police officer to testify that she believed victim was telling the truth.
Tharp v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 03-23-00102-CR (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no pet.) (op., designated for publication).
Tharp was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child. Two of his issues on appeal involved the admissibility of evidence. First, Tharp argued that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from cross-examining the victim about “prior false and incredible allegations of abuse.” The appellate court disagreed. The court first discussed how the evidence was inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 401, 403, 404(b), and 608(b). The court also rejected Tharp’s contention that the exclusion of the evidence violated his constitutional confrontation rights. The court explained that in deciding this issue, it was “necessary to balance the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced against the risk that its admission may entail,” and “the trial court reasonably could have determined that the probative value of the prior allegations was minimal” and that the admission of the evidence “would have been unduly prejudicial, would have required a significant amount of time to develop, and carried the additional substantial risk of confusing the jury.”