Gregory Frank Estes will remain convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child after the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Texas largely affirmed the trial court’s decision. However, the appellate court did vacate judgments of acquittal on two other counts that had been waived by the state before trial.
Estes was originally charged with a multitude of offenses, including seven counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, one count of sexual assault of a child, and two counts of indecency with a child. The alleged victim, referred to as PSEUJKR to protect her identity, is Estes’s great-niece.
The Trial and the Charges
At trial, the state proceeded on eight of the ten counts, ultimately securing convictions on Counts One and Five. These counts specifically involved allegations of digital penetration. The jury acquitted Estes on the remaining counts that were presented. Estes was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for each of the two counts, to be served consecutively.
The Appeal: Extraneous Offenses and Expert Testimony
Estes’s appeal centered on six key issues, primarily challenging the trial court’s decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence and the qualifications of expert witnesses.
First, Estes argued that the trial court erred in admitting “extraneous-offense evidence” – testimony from six different women detailing alleged instances of sexual misconduct by Estes. He claimed this evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, serving only to demonstrate character conformity rather than proving a specific element of the charged offenses.
Second and third, Estes challenged the qualifications of the complainant’s therapist as a trauma expert and the case detective as a delayed outcry expert. He questioned their expertise and the reliability of their testimony.
Fourth, Estes contended that the trial court improperly excluded evidence that a grand jury had previously declined to indict him on the complainant’s allegations in 2012. He believed this evidence was crucial to his defense.
Fifth, Estes argued the trial court erred in excluding evidence during the punishment phase that he claimed would have shown a lack of impact on the alleged victim.
Finally, Estes challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The Court’s Decision: Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part
The Eleventh Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of the extraneous offense evidence and the qualifications of the expert witnesses. The court reasoned that the extraneous offense evidence was admissible to rebut Estes’s defensive theory that the complainant had fabricated her allegations. The court also said this evidence showed Estes’s modus operandi. The court emphasized the trial judge gave a limiting instruction to the jury on how they could consider the extraneous evidence. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to allow the experts to testify.
The court also agreed with the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of the previous grand jury’s no-bill, citing existing precedent that such evidence is not material to the defense of a case. The court stated the State had not created a false impression because, at the time of the detective’s statement, the case had yet to be presented to a grand jury. The court did not find the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.
The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence during the punishment phase. The court explained because the evidence was intended to show the alleged victim had not been victimized, it was an improper collateral attack on the jury’s guilty verdict.
Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying Estes a new trial based on the new witness testimony. The court reasoned the new evidence that the alleged victim wanted Estes to be held accountable for sexually abusing her mother does not establish the alleged victim fabricated her allegations against him.
However, the appellate court found error in the trial court’s judgments of acquittal on Counts Eight and Ten. Because the State waived these counts before the jury was empaneled, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s judgments of acquittal on these counts and ordered that the counts be dismissed.
What This Means
Gregory Frank Estes will continue to serve his sentence for the two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. While the appellate court vacated the judgments of acquittal on two counts, these counts were dismissed and do not affect the validity of the convictions on Counts One and Five.