Opinion
NUMBER 13-14-00752-CR
02-01-2018
JOAQUIN DANIEL QUINTERO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant Joaquin Daniel Quintero appeals his conviction of three counts of first-degree felony aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 27.021 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Appellant received a life sentence. By one issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred by permitting an expert to opine regarding hypothetical situations and appellant's guilt because the expert's testimony did not meet the "fit requirement" under Texas Rules of Evidence 702 and 401; and the expert's testimony was not helpful to the jury. We affirm.
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
I. DISCUSSION
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 establishes that to preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaint on appeal must have been made to the trial court "by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court." TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. "With the exception of the right of trial by jury, a defendant can waive any trial error, including constitutional error, by failing to properly object or request the proper relief." Maldonado v. State, 902 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.).
To challenge an expert witness at trial a party may argue that (1) the witness does not qualify as an expert because the witness lacks the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the subject matter of the expert's testimony, (2) the subject matter of the testimony is unreliable, and (3) the testimony will not assist the fact finder in deciding the case. Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). "The three requirements raise distinct questions and issues, and an objection based on one of these requirements does not preserve error as to another." Shaw v. State, 329 S.W.3d 645, 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (citing Turner v. State, 252 S.W.3d 571, 584 n. 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd)). Moreover, error is not preserved "if a party objects to expert testimony without identifying one or more of these issues." Shaw, 329 S.W.3d at 655 (citing Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism'd) (explaining "[o]bjections based simply on Rule 702 and Daubert alone" do not preserve error)).
At trial, Michelle Moran, Ph.D., testified regarding the symptoms sexually abused children experience, reasons why children do not report sexual abuse and why they may deny the sexual abuse when asked about it, the concept of "delayed outcry," and the "grooming process" practiced by perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Dr. Moran further testified about the problems and disorders the child witnesses who claimed appellant sexually abused them had suffered. Appellant failed to object to any of Dr. Moran's testimony on any basis. Accordingly, appellant did not preserve his appellate complaints that the trial court improperly admitted Dr. Moran's testimony pursuant to rules 702, 401, or because her testimony would not assist the jury. We overrule appellant's sole issue.
II. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 1st day of February, 2018.