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. The complainant, identified as Anne, testified that Hawley began sexually abusing her when she was four or five years old and continued until she was approximately fifteen. She described repeated genital touching, oral sex, and attempted penetration occurring over many years.
The jury convicted Hawley on all three charges and assessed fifty years’ imprisonment for continuous sexual abuse and ten years for each indecency offense. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Hawley challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of testimony from Anne’s sister, Amber, and another woman, Kim, concerning alleged sexual offenses Hawley committed against them as children.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed all three judgments. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the court held that Anne’s testimony alone was legally sufficient. Her account described at least two acts of sexual abuse occurring during a period of thirty or more days while she was younger than fourteen, satisfying the continuous-sexual-abuse statute, and also established the charged acts of indecency with a child. Assessing her credibility was the jury’s responsibility.
The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting Amber’s and Kim’s testimony under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, which permits evidence that a defendant committed certain sexual offenses against children other than the charged victim. Hawley did not make a Rule 403 objection at trial, so he failed to preserve his appellate contention that unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the testimony’s probative value. He likewise failed to preserve his argument that admitting Amber’s testimony violated due process because he did not raise that constitutional objection in the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- A child complainant’s testimony can, without corroboration, provide legally sufficient evidence of continuous sexual abuse and indecency with a child.
- Article 38.37 permits evidence of qualifying sexual offenses against children other than the victim named in the indictment, including evidence bearing on the defendant’s character and conduct conforming to that character.
- A defendant must specifically raise Rule 403 and due-process objections in the trial court to preserve those arguments for appellate review.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the broad admissibility of other-child sexual-offense evidence under article 38.37 and the deference appellate courts give juries on witness credibility. It also underscores that an article 38.37 objection does not preserve a distinct Rule 403 challenge; counsel must separately invoke each asserted ground for exclusion.