## Facts

- Miguel Angel Aguilera was tried in the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, for sexual offenses involving a child complainant identified as S.G.
- At trial, the State called S.G. to testify.
- S.G. was seven years old at the time of her testimony, had repeated first grade, and had a learning disability.
- Over defense objection, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to use leading questions during S.G.’s direct examination to help develop her testimony.
- The State also sought to introduce S.G.’s “outcry” statement through an adult witness, Cardenas, under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 (the child-abuse outcry statute).
- More than fourteen days before trial, the State provided written notice identifying Cardenas as the outcry witness and providing a written summary of the statement the State intended to elicit.
- The trial court admitted the outcry testimony.
- The jury found Aguilera guilty, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by permitting the State to ask leading questions of S.G., a seven-year-old witness with a learning disability, during direct examination?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting S.G.’s outcry statement through Cardenas under article 38.072 based on the State’s notice and summary?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing leading questions on direct examination given S.G.’s age and learning limitations and the court’s responsibility to control the manner of witness examination.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the outcry testimony because the State gave timely written notice, identified the outcry witness, and provided a written summary that reasonably informed the defense of the substance of the statement.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to control the mode and order of examining witnesses, and appellate review of such rulings is for abuse of discretion (often framed as whether the ruling falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement).
- Under Texas Rule of Evidence 611(c), leading questions are generally disfavored on direct examination but may be allowed when necessary to develop a witness’s testimony, including when the witness is a young child or has cognitive or learning limitations that make open-ended narration difficult.
- A party challenging the use of leading questions must show that the trial court’s allowance of the questioning was an abuse of discretion in the context of the full examination, not merely that some questions suggested an answer.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 permits admission of certain hearsay statements by a child abuse complainant through the first adult to whom the child made a statement about the offense, if statutory conditions are met.
- Article 38.072 requires the State to provide written notice at least fourteen days before trial of its intent to use the statement, including the name of the witness through whom the statement will be offered and a written summary of the statement.
- The purpose of article 38.072’s notice requirement is to prevent unfair surprise; notice is sufficient if it reasonably informs the defendant of the essential facts of the outcry statement.

## Conclusion

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed Aguilera’s conviction, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion by allowing the State to use leading questions to develop testimony from a seven-year-old child with a learning disability and by admitting the child’s outcry statement where the State provided timely article 38.072 notice identifying the outcry witness and summarizing the statement.


Aguilera v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12048 (2015)