## Facts

- The State of Texas prosecuted Selestino Rodriguez for aggravated assault involving a young child.
- Rodriguez, age 66, went to the home of Ramon Gavia on a Sunday afternoon; Ramon was not home.
- Cathalina Gavia (Ramon’s daughter) invited Rodriguez inside to wait.
- Cathalina testified that when she returned to the room after leaving briefly, Rodriguez and the seven-year-old child were on a couch; she said Rodriguez had a hand over the child’s mouth and was pulling down the child’s pants.
- The child was determined not competent to testify at trial, leaving Cathalina as the State’s only eyewitness.
- Rodriguez testified and denied assaulting the child, stating he was only helping the child pull her underwear up when Cathalina entered and reacted.
- Rodriguez also claimed Cathalina falsely accused him out of revenge after he told her father he had seen Cathalina with a man the prior day.
- The State recalled Cathalina, and she denied Rodriguez’s accusations of her prior conduct and denied that Rodriguez confronted her about it at her home.
- The State introduced evidence that Cathalina had a good reputation in the community for truthfulness.
- The jury convicted Rodriguez and assessed punishment at nine months in jail and a $750 fine.
- On appeal, Rodriguez challenged, among other matters, the admission of the State’s reputation evidence bolstering Cathalina’s truthfulness.

## Issues

1. When the defense attacks the State’s primary witness as fabricating an accusation out of spite, may the State respond by introducing testimony about the witness’s good reputation for truth and veracity?
2. Did Rodriguez preserve for appellate review his complaint about the trial court’s ruling during voir dire, where counsel claimed he should have been allowed to correct an allegedly erroneous statement to the jury panel?
3. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support the aggravated-assault conviction based on Cathalina’s testimony?

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the voir dire complaint presented nothing for review because the record did not show what statement was made, whether it was erroneous, what the State objected to, or the substance of the bench discussion.
- The court concluded the jury was entitled to credit Cathalina’s account and that her testimony, if believed, was sufficient to support the verdict.
- The court rejected Rodriguez’s claim of reversible error regarding the State’s use of reputation evidence for Cathalina’s truthfulness, in light of the defense attack on her credibility.

## Legal Principles

- A party may introduce evidence of a witness’s good reputation for truth and veracity after the opposing party attacks that witness’s credibility by claiming the witness is lying or has fabricated the accusation from an improper motive.
- Appellate courts review only matters shown by the record; alleged trial error must be preserved and supported by a record that identifies what occurred, what was objected to, and how the court ruled.
- Credibility choices are for the jury, and a conviction may rest on a single witness’s testimony if the jury finds that testimony credible and it establishes the offense.
- When the complainant or key eyewitness is impeached by an accusation of falsification, the State is permitted to present character-for-truthfulness evidence as a response to that impeachment.

## Conclusion

Rodriguez’s aggravated-assault conviction was affirmed because the appellate record did not preserve his voir dire complaint, the jury could reasonably believe the State’s eyewitness and find the elements proven, and the State was permitted to support its sole eyewitness’s credibility with reputation-for-truthfulness testimony after Rodriguez claimed she fabricated the accusation out of revenge.


Rodriguez v. State, 305 S.W.2d 350 (1957)