Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Agosto was convicted by a jury for the second-degree offense of indecency with a child by contact and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The victim, M.B., was the teenage daughter of Agosto’s live-in girlfriend. The abuse occurred after the family moved to Texas, with one incident involving Agosto touching M.B.’s private areas in a swimming pool.
In another instance, Agosto coerced M.B. into having vaginal sex with him in exchange for returning her phone, which her mother had confiscated as punishment. Following these and other acts of abuse, M.B. disclosed what had happened to a teacher and a school counselor. At trial, a forensic interviewer and a police sergeant testified for the prosecution. Agosto appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing these witnesses to give testimony that improperly “bolstered” the victim’s credibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed Agosto’s conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged testimony. On appeal, Agosto pointed to two instances of alleged bolstering. First, a forensic interviewer testified that she had no concerns about the “veracity” of M.B.’s statements and would have reported any such concerns to the detective. Second, another witness testified that M.B.’s account during the forensic interview was consistent with her initial outcry.
The court explained that “bolstering” is the improper use of evidence for the sole purpose of adding credence to an earlier, unimpeached piece of evidence. The court, applying precedent from the Second Court of Appeals, determined that the testimony in question did not constitute improper vouching for the victim’s credibility. The witnesses did not state that they believed M.B., but rather that they had no concerns about her being dishonest and that her statements were consistent. Citing prior cases, the court reasoned that testimony about a lack of concern for a witness’s dishonesty or about the consistency of a witness’s statements over time does not convey a direct opinion on the witness’s truthfulness and is therefore admissible.
Key Takeaways
- In Texas, testimony that a witness’s statements were consistent over time is not considered improper bolstering, provided the witness does not also give an opinion on the significance of that consistency.
- A law enforcement officer or forensic interviewer may testify that they had no concerns regarding a victim’s veracity during an interview without it being considered an inadmissible opinion on the victim’s truthfulness.
- The legal concept of “bolstering” prohibits evidence whose *sole purpose* is to add credibility to a witness; if the evidence has another relevant purpose, such as explaining the course of an investigation, it is less likely to be excluded.
Why It Matters
This opinion provides a clear example of the fine line between permissible testimony regarding the investigative process and improper “bolstering” of a witness’s credibility. It reinforces the principle that witnesses, particularly expert and law enforcement witnesses, cannot directly vouch for a victim’s truthfulness. However, it also clarifies that they can testify about objective facts observed during an investigation—such as the consistency of a story or the absence of red flags—that may indirectly support a witness’s credibility.
The ruling underscores the high bar for a successful bolstering objection in Texas criminal courts. For prosecutors, it affirms the ability to present evidence showing a thorough and professional investigation. For defense counsel, it highlights the need to frame objections carefully, focusing on whether testimony is truly an opinion on credibility rather than just a description of investigative steps.