Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garcia, 05-24-00991-CR, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records of an extraneous victim during the punishment phase of a trial, even when that victim is unavailable to testify. Under the broad evidentiary standards of Article 37.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the probative value of forensic records linking a defendant to prior bad acts through DNA evidence outweighs the potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Relevance to Family Law
While Green is a criminal appeal, its implications for high-conflict SAPCR and termination proceedings are profound. Texas family law litigators often encounter “unavailable” witnesses—victims of domestic or sexual violence who refuse to participate in a custody battle or a parental rights termination case. This ruling provides a strategic pathway for introducing graphic, objective forensic evidence (such as SANE records or medical reports) of extraneous acts of violence to establish a pattern of conduct or a parent’s character under the “best interest of the child” standard, even when the victim of those acts is not present for cross-examination.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Christopher Michael Green was convicted of a 2005 aggravated sexual assault that was eventually solved through DNA evidence. During the punishment phase of his trial, the State sought to demonstrate a lifelong pattern of predatory behavior. To do so, the State introduced evidence regarding five other victims. While four of those victims testified live, one victim, AJ, did not. Instead, the State offered AJ’s SANE exam records (Exhibit 139), which contained forensic findings and descriptions of the assault. Green’s counsel objected under Rule 403, arguing that admitting these records without AJ’s testimony created an “unfair specter” of graphic evidence that the defense could not cross-examine or “humanize.” The trial court overruled the objection, the jury received the evidence, and Green was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the SANE records of an unavailable extraneous victim during the punishment phase, specifically whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the records under Texas Rule of Evidence 403.
Rules Applied
The court looked to Article 37.07, § 3(a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the admissibility of evidence during sentencing. This statute allows for evidence of any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including extraneous crimes or bad acts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also applied Texas Rule of Evidence 403, using the Gigliobianco factors to balance the “inherent probative force” of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice. The court noted that while Rule 401 (general relevance) is the starting point, the “relevance” in a punishment context is defined by what is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence.”
Application
The court’s application of the law turned on the broad discretion afforded to trial judges during the punishment phase. The Dallas Court of Appeals reasoned that because Green’s DNA was a match for the profile generated from AJ’s SANE exam, the records possessed high probative value regarding Green’s character and the need for a severe sentence.
In addressing the Rule 403 objection, the court dismissed the argument that the “graphic and emotional” nature of the records rendered them “unfairly” prejudicial. The court noted that “unfair prejudice” does not mean evidence that simply damages the defendant’s case; rather, it refers to an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis. Because the records were part of a larger narrative of Green’s conduct—bolstered by the live testimony of four other victims—the court found the State’s need for the evidence was significant to show the full scope of Green’s criminal history. The fact that the victim did not testify went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility under Rule 403.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the SANE records. The evidence was relevant to sentencing under Article 37.07 as it assisted the jury in assessing Green’s character and the appropriate punishment for a serial offender.
Furthermore, the court held that the probative value of the records—which were corroborated by objective DNA evidence—was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court affirmed the life sentence, confirming that live testimony is not a prerequisite for the admission of forensic medical records detailing extraneous bad acts at the punishment stage.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, Green reinforces the ability to use “paper-only” evidence of violence in the dispositional phase of a case. In a termination of parental rights case under Texas Family Code § 161.001, or a custody dispute where § 153.004 (history of abuse) is invoked, the “punishment phase” logic of Green applies to the “Best Interest” analysis.
If a parent has a history of extraneous violence, counsel should move to admit SANE records, hospital records, or police reports even if the victim of those acts is unavailable. By framing the evidence as “character” evidence relevant to the safety of the child, and leveraging the Green standard that Rule 403 does not bar graphic forensic records simply because the victim is absent, practitioners can build a more robust record of a party’s dangerousness.
Checklists
Admitting Extraneous Forensic Records
- Establish the Link: Ensure there is objective evidence (DNA, police reports, or prior convictions) linking the party to the extraneous act described in the records.
- Identify the Statutory Gateway: In family law, tie the evidence to Texas Family Code § 153.004 or the Holley factors for best interest.
- Address Rule 403 Proactively: Argue that the “probative force” of objective medical findings is necessary for the court to assess the “character” of the parent and the potential “danger to the child.”
- Prepare a Redaction Strategy: If the records contain double-hearsay not related to medical diagnosis, be prepared to redact those portions while keeping the graphic physical findings intact.
Defending Against “Silent” Medical Evidence
- Argue Confrontation and Fairness: While the Sixth Amendment may not apply in civil SAPCRs, argue that Rule 403 “unfair prejudice” is heightened when a party cannot cross-examine the narrative context of a medical report.
- Challenge the “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Threshold: If the records are being used under Art. 37.07 or a similar standard, argue that without the victim, the “bad act” itself has not been proven to the requisite legal standard.
- Highlight Ambiguity: Focus on medical findings in the records that could be attributed to causes other than the alleged assault.
Citation
Green v. State, No. 05-24-00991-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In a Texas divorce or custody battle, this ruling can be “weaponized” to bypass the common problem of a “missing victim.” Often, a spouse or partner has a history of domestic violence or sexual assault involving third parties who are unwilling to get involved in the current litigation.
Under the logic of Green, you do not need those third parties to testify to get their SANE exams or emergency room records into evidence. If you are seeking to restrict a parent’s access or terminate their rights, you can introduce these forensic records to prove a “pattern of conduct.” Green suggests that as long as you have a reliable link (like DNA or a police ID), the graphic nature of the medical records is not “unfairly” prejudicial—it is, in fact, exactly what the court needs to see to determine the safety and character of the party in question. This effectively allows the “paper trail” of a violent history to speak for itself when the victims cannot or will not.
~~36b9bcba-4abb-449d-aab8-7c593b2ddbfb~~
Share this content: