Background
Brian Edward Hawley was tried in three consolidated cases for continuous sexual abuse of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. Anne, the complainant, testified that Hawley began sexually abusing her when she was four or five years old and continued until she was about fifteen. The jury convicted Hawley on all three charges, assessed fifty years’ imprisonment for continuous sexual abuse and ten years for each indecency offense, and the trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
At trial, Anne’s sister Amber testified that Hawley had also sexually abused her as a child. Kim, a friend of Amber, testified that Hawley sexually assaulted her when she was fourteen after giving her alcohol. Following hearings outside the jury’s presence, the trial court admitted Amber’s and Kim’s testimony under article 38.37 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Hawley appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of the extraneous-offense testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed all three judgments. It held that Anne’s testimony alone was legally sufficient because she described repeated acts of sexual abuse occurring over a period far longer than thirty days while she was under fourteen. Her testimony also supported the two indecency convictions. Credibility and the weight assigned to her testimony were matters for the jury.
The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting Amber’s and Kim’s testimony under article 38.37, which permits evidence of certain sexual offenses against children other than the charged victim. Hawley did not make a Rule 403 objection at trial, so his appellate argument that unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the evidence’s probative value was not preserved. His due-process challenge to Amber’s testimony was likewise unpreserved because he did not raise it in the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- A child complainant’s testimony may, by itself, provide legally sufficient evidence of continuous sexual abuse and indecency with a child.
- Article 38.37 permits qualifying evidence that a defendant committed separate child-sex offenses against victims other than the complainant.
- An article 38.37 objection does not preserve a distinct Rule 403 or due-process argument; each ground must be timely presented to the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the breadth of article 38.37 in child-sex-offense prosecutions and the deference appellate courts give juries on witness credibility. It also highlights the need for defense counsel to separately preserve statutory-admissibility, Rule 403, and constitutional objections when challenging extraneous-offense evidence.