 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. State4/23/2004
r appellant was finished, L.C. noticed a wet substance coming from his butt. He did not know if it was urine or water, but did not think it was urine because it was not yellow. L.C. told Moore that he was afraid to tell his mother because appellant was there the entire time. While he and appellant were in the bathroom, appellant told him not to say anything "or else." L.C. was afraid appellant might kill him or shoot him with a gun. L.C. stated that the same thing had occurred three or four times, but could only recall two occasions. He said that the night before, appellant had put his hand in L.C.'s pants and fondled him while they were on the couch watching T.V.
Moore testified that while L.C. was telling her what had happened, he had tears rolling down his face. The tears did not seem fake nor did they seem to occur at inappropriate times. L.C.'s dad was there off and on while Moore was talking to L.C. The child's dad did not say anything, did not tell L.C. to change any details, and did not coach him. When Detective Rich arrived at the scene, L.C. took them on a walk-through of the apartment. He showed them where everything happened. L.C.'s dad did not come into the apartment.
The officer took L.C. to the Child Advocacy Center. L.C.'s mother and father both came and were interviewed separately. L.C.'s mother did not believe her son's story, and claimed that L.C.'s dad had planted it. L.C.'s dad was very supportive of the child. Moore watched L.C. being interviewed through a two-way mirror. She neither saw nor heard anything that she would consider "red flags" that would make her suspicious of L.C.'s account of events. Moore admitted that there was nothing in her report about appellant turning on the shower or that something came out of Leo's butt. She garnered this information from watching the interview at the Advocacy Center. That is also where she found out about the fondling incident.
Detective Jeff Rich testified that he went to the scene and spoke to L.C.'s father, and then to L.C. alone. L.C.'s father seemed calm but concerned. He did not seem angry. L.C.'s mother did not believe him. Rich did a walk-through of the apartment with L.C., after L.C. indicated he wanted to show him what had happened. L.C. took him to the bathroom and laid down on the rug on the floor to show where appellant put him. L.C.'s father was not present during the walk-through.
Rich testified that he makes note of things that corroborate the alleged victim's and the alleged perpetrator's stories because there are very rarely any witnesses. As an example, if the child says that a blue towel was used, he searches for a blue towel. He observes how much detail the child can relate. If the occurrence is not vivid in his mind, it may be because it did not happen. He watches for signs that a child has been coached, such as the use of words or details that he would be unlikely to use or know. Rich stated that he also looks for physical evidence.
After he spoke to L.C. and completed the walk-through of the apartment, Rich stated that he took L.C. to the Children's Advocacy Center where Janetta Michaels conducted a forensic interview. He later watched the tape of the interview. There were no red flags and no inconsistencies in L.C.'s interview. There was no indication that L.C. was coached. Rich testified that L.C.'s father did not seem to be a vindictive type. Neither did he seem like a person who would conspire against appellant or make up a story about him. Based upon the evidence, including L.C.'s statements, it did not appear to Rich that L.C. was being led or directed as to what to say.
Carol Goldberg, a certified pediatric sexual assault nurse, conducted a sexual
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|