## Facts

- Eric Paul Michael was charged and later convicted of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child based on allegations by H.F., a nine-year-old girl.
- H.F. attended a sleepover at Michael’s home, where she slept in a guest bedroom with Michael’s two daughters.
- H.F. alleged that during the night Michael entered the room, masturbated near her, attempted to have her touch his penis, and performed oral sex on her.
- Months later, H.F. reported the incident to her mother, who contacted police; H.F. gave a videotaped interview at the National Alliance for Children.
- At trial, H.F. testified; on cross-examination, defense counsel impeached her with prior inconsistent statements from the interview about details (e.g., room size, body positioning, and descriptive differences).
- On rebuttal, the State offered Stacy Turner (H.F.’s former teacher and babysitter) to give an opinion that H.F. was truthful; the defense objected that H.F.’s truthful character had not been attacked.
- The trial court overruled the objection and admitted Turner’s opinion testimony about H.F.’s character for truthfulness.

## Issues

1. Whether impeachment by prior inconsistent statements, as used here, necessarily constitutes an attack on a witness’s character for truthfulness permitting rehabilitative opinion or reputation evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 608(a).

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that impeachment by prior inconsistent statements does not automatically attack a witness’s character for truthfulness for purposes of Rule 608(a).
- The court concluded the defense cross-examination targeted discrepancies in H.F.’s account rather than her general veracity, so her character for truthfulness was not attacked within the meaning of Rule 608(a).
- The trial court therefore erred by admitting Turner’s opinion testimony bolstering H.F.’s truthfulness.
- The court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for a harm analysis under Texas law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Rule of Evidence 608(a), opinion or reputation evidence supporting a witness’s truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.
- Not all impeachment is character impeachment; impeachment may challenge accuracy, perception, or memory without asserting a general propensity to lie.
- Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements may or may not amount to an attack on character for truthfulness; courts must examine the nature, extent, and context of the impeachment to decide whether Rule 608(a) rehabilitation is permitted.
- When a trial court erroneously admits bolstering evidence under Rule 608(a), the reviewing court must assess whether the error was harmful under the applicable standard.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a per se rule that any prior-inconsistent-statement impeachment opens the door to truthfulness-bolstering under Rule 608(a), held the bolstering testimony was improperly admitted on this record, and remanded for an evaluation of whether the error affected the convictions.


Michael v. State, 235 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)