Valdez, Luis Alberto

Valdez was convicted of indecency of a child by sexual contact. The complainant was one of three sisters who all made some sort of allegation against Valdez, who was in a relationship with their mother. The mother, victim, sisters, and CAC forensic interviewer testified, as did an investigator. Their cross-examination pointed out that the complainant was the only source of evidence and included suggestions that her memory was faulty, the allegations were concocted through discussion among the sisters, and the mother prompted the accusation to get Valdez in trouble. The investigator, who testified after all the others, was asked on redirect whether it is common for a case like this to “essentially come down to the [complainant’s] testimony.” His answer, in full:

And like I said, I’ve sat through many of these interviews. A lot of times while watching them you get the experience of being able to tell what is a truthful statement and what’s not. I’ve sat through many of them where I’m at the end of it and I’m like, somebody has coached this kid to say this. That -- I did not come across that with any of these children. These children were believable.

Valdez’s objection to bolstering was overruled.

The court of appeals affirmed. It held that, by alleging through cross-examination that the complainant either concocted her allegations with her sisters or was prompted by her mother, “Valdez opened the door to [the investigator’s] opinion.” Valdez filed a petition with four grounds related to this ruling.

The Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition and granted review of their own question