CROSSOVER: Mother’s Outcry Testimony and Sisters’ Abuse Allegations Admissible in Child-Sexual-Assault Prosecution

Ramos v. State, 03-25-00824-CR, October 14, 2026.

On appeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County

Synopsis

A child-sexual-assault prosecution may include testimony from the child’s mother concerning the child’s outcry and allegations that the defendant committed similar offenses against the child’s sisters when the statutory predicates for Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.072 and 38.37 are satisfied. But a bill of costs cannot impose a second fine unsupported by the sentence and judgment; the court of appeals therefore deleted the duplicate fine under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) and otherwise affirmed the convictions.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Ramos is a criminal case, its evidentiary issues frequently overlap with suits affecting the parent-child relationship, protective-order proceedings, and divorces involving allegations of child sexual abuse. Family-law litigators must distinguish the criminal outcry statute from the civil rules governing a child’s abuse-related statements—particularly Texas Family Code section 104.006—while developing admissible evidence through the first adult recipient, the child, forensic interviewers, treating professionals, and other witnesses.

The opinion also illustrates a separate appellate principle relevant to divorce and SAPCR judgments: a ministerial document cannot enlarge the relief actually pronounced or adjudicated. When a clerk’s cost record, fee entry, withholding document, or enforcement instrument conflicts with the controlling judgment, counsel should identify the inconsistency and request an appropriate correction rather than treating the later document as an independent adjudication.

Family Law Crossover

The principal evidentiary mechanism in Ramos was a predicate hearing outside the jury’s presence. Article 38.072 permits qualifying outcry testimony after the trial court evaluates the statutory requirements and determines that the statement is sufficiently reliable. Article 38.37 separately permits evidence of certain sexual offenses involving other child victims, subject to its procedural requirements and the governing evidentiary safeguards. The mother’s account of N.M.’s disclosure and her account of the sisters’ allegations therefore implicated different admissibility theories, even though the disclosures arose during the same family conversation.

Neither criminal statute automatically governs a civil family-law proceeding. The closest civil analogue is Texas Family Code section 104.006, which may permit testimony about an abuse statement made by a child twelve years old or younger to the first person, eighteen years of age or older, to whom the child made the statement. The trial court must find that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indications of reliability, and the statute imposes additional conditions concerning the child’s testimony or unavailability.

The second crossover concerns correction of the record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) authorizes an appellate court to modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. In a family case, the same general problem may arise when an abstract, cost bill, withholding order, enforcement document, or other ministerial record does not conform to the signed decree or order. The available corrective procedure will depend on whether the discrepancy is clerical or judicial, whether the trial court retains plenary power, and whether the case has reached the appellate stage.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Richard Vincent Ramos was prosecuted in two Williamson County cases for aggravated sexual assault of his niece, N.M. The jury convicted him of two counts, and the trial court sentenced him to ninety years’ imprisonment on each count.

N.M. and her three sisters regularly spent time at their maternal grandparents’ home, where Ramos lived. After the family moved from California to Texas, the children continued to have contact with him, including occasions when he babysat them. Over time, N.M. and one of her sisters stopped wanting to stay overnight at the grandparents’ residence.

The disclosures occurred after the children’s mother returned from a trip. One younger daughter initially reported that Ramos had hurt her. Another daughter then stated that Ramos touched the girls in places he should not, connecting the conduct to a school safety presentation concerning sexual abuse. The other sisters agreed and described inappropriate touching, requests that they be naked, and material Ramos allegedly showed them on his phone.

Mother then went to N.M.’s room and asked whether Ramos had touched her. N.M. began crying and described sexual conduct by Ramos, as well as threats intended to prevent disclosure. At trial, N.M. gave more detailed testimony about repeated abuse in California and Texas. One of her sisters also testified about inappropriate touching and sexually explicit material.

Before the jury heard Mother’s testimony, the district court conducted a hearing outside the jury’s presence. The State sought to offer Mother’s account of N.M.’s disclosure under article 38.072 and her testimony concerning the sisters’ allegations under article 38.37. Ramos objected that the trial should be confined to N.M.’s allegations and argued that the other allegations were the subjects of pending charges. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the evidence.

The prosecution also introduced evidence obtained from Ramos’s phone. According to the testimony, the extraction reflected search terms associated with minors and child pornography, images in the browser cache, and links to child pornography. Ramos presented a forensic consultant concerning the phone search and also testified.

Following the convictions, the bills of costs assessed two fines in each prosecution even though the sentences and judgments authorized only one fine per case. Ramos challenged both the evidentiary ruling and the duplicate financial assessments.

Issues Decided

• Whether Mother could testify as N.M.’s outcry witness under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072.

• Whether Mother could testify about allegations that Ramos committed similar sexual offenses against N.M.’s sisters under article 38.37.

• Whether the existence of pending charges concerning the sisters’ allegations prevented their admission in N.M.’s prosecutions.

• Whether each bill of costs could assess two fines when the corresponding sentence and judgment authorized only one fine.

• Whether the court of appeals could modify the judgments and bills of costs under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) to delete the unauthorized duplicate fines.

Rules Applied

• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072: This statute provides a hearsay exception for certain statements by a child-abuse victim to a qualifying outcry witness. Its procedural safeguards include a hearing outside the jury’s presence at which the trial court assesses whether the statement’s time, content, and circumstances provide sufficient indications of reliability.

• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37: In prosecutions for specified offenses against children, the statute permits evidence that the defendant committed certain other offenses against the same or another child. The statute contains procedural prerequisites and operates subject to the trial court’s evidentiary gatekeeping responsibilities.

• Texas Penal Code sections 12.32 and 22.021: These provisions govern the punishment range for a first-degree felony and the offense of aggravated sexual assault, respectively.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b): A court of appeals may modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm the judgment as modified.

• Judgment-control principle: A bill of costs documents authorized financial obligations; it does not independently create an additional criminal fine that the sentence and judgment did not impose.

Application

The trial court first addressed the evidentiary questions outside the jury’s presence. Mother described the sequence in which the sisters disclosed inappropriate conduct and explained how she then approached N.M. N.M.’s emotional response, her description of sexual conduct, and her account of threats supplied the basis for treating Mother as the recipient of N.M.’s outcry under article 38.072. N.M. later testified at trial and described the abuse in substantially greater detail.

The sisters’ allegations rested on a separate statutory ground. Article 38.37 allows qualifying evidence of other child-sexual offenses, including offenses involving children other than the complainant in the charged prosecution. The fact that the other allegations were also the subjects of charges did not categorically remove them from article 38.37. The district court therefore allowed Mother to recount those disclosures, and one sister later testified directly about the alleged conduct.

The appellate court upheld the admission of Mother’s testimony. Procedurally, the record included the required hearing outside the jury’s presence. Substantively, the challenged testimony fell within the statutory framework governing a child’s outcry and evidence of similar offenses involving other child victims.

The monetary issue required a different result. Each sentence and judgment supported one fine, but each bill of costs included two. Because the bill of costs could not impose a second fine that the court’s sentence and judgment did not authorize, the additional fine was not enforceable merely because it appeared in the cost record. Rather than reverse the convictions, the appellate court used Rule 43.2(b) to conform the judgments and bills of costs to the lawful sentences.

Holding

The court affirmed the trial court’s admission of Mother’s outcry testimony concerning N.M. The testimony was admitted through the procedure established by article 38.072, including a hearing outside the jury’s presence, and N.M. also testified at trial.

The court likewise upheld the admission of testimony concerning alleged sexual offenses against N.M.’s sisters under article 38.37. The existence of separate or pending charges concerning those allegations did not, by itself, make the evidence inadmissible in the prosecution involving N.M.

The court held that a bill of costs may not impose a second fine unsupported by the sentence and judgment. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court modified each judgment and bill of costs to delete the unauthorized duplicate fine and affirmed the convictions as modified.

Practical Application

For family-law practitioners, Ramos underscores the importance of identifying the precise admissibility theory for every abuse-related statement. A parent’s testimony that a child disclosed abuse is not automatically admissible merely because the subject matter is serious. Counsel should determine the child’s age when the statement was made, identify the first adult recipient, preserve the child’s actual words, and develop evidence showing why the statement is reliable.

In a SAPCR, Texas Family Code section 104.006—not article 38.072—will ordinarily provide the relevant statutory framework for a child’s abuse statement. Counsel should request a predicate hearing and be prepared to address the statement’s timing, spontaneity, terminology, consistency, surrounding circumstances, and any questioning that preceded it. If several siblings made disclosures, each child’s statement should be analyzed separately; one sibling’s admissible statement does not automatically establish the admissibility of another’s.

When a divorce or custody case proceeds alongside a criminal investigation, counsel should coordinate discovery strategy carefully. Forensic interviews, medical records, law-enforcement files, school records, counseling records, and electronic evidence may implicate privileges, confidentiality statutes, protective orders, constitutional concerns, and ongoing criminal proceedings. The admissibility of evidence in one forum does not guarantee admissibility in another.

The duplicate-fine holding also supports a disciplined review of final family-law orders. Counsel should compare the court’s rendition, docket-sheet entries, signed decree, cost bill, withholding order, and enforcement documents. If a later ministerial instrument adds an obligation not imposed by the controlling order, the discrepancy should be raised promptly through the procedure appropriate to the case’s posture.

Checklists

Preparing to Offer a Child’s Abuse Statement

• Identify the child’s exact age when the statement was made.

• Determine who first received the substantive disclosure.

• Confirm that the proposed witness satisfies the governing statute’s age and recipient requirements.

• Preserve the child’s words as accurately as possible.

• Document when, where, and under what circumstances the statement occurred.

• Identify the questions, if any, that preceded the disclosure.

• Develop evidence addressing spontaneity, consistency, age-appropriate terminology, and emotional condition.

• Determine whether the child will testify or whether a legally recognized basis for unavailability exists.

• Request a predicate hearing outside the jury’s presence when appropriate.

• Obtain a ruling that identifies the statutory or evidentiary basis for admission.

Addressing Allegations Involving Multiple Children

• Analyze each child’s statement independently.

• Separate first-hand testimony from hearsay accounts.

• Identify the admissibility theory for each witness and each statement.

• Avoid assuming that a criminal outcry ruling controls admissibility in the SAPCR.

• Evaluate relevance under Texas Rules of Evidence 401 and 402.

• Prepare for a Rule 403 balancing analysis.

• Consider whether Rule 404(b), another evidentiary rule, or a specific statute applies.

• Address confidentiality, privilege, and sealing requirements before offering records.

• Determine whether parallel criminal proceedings affect discovery, testimony, or invocation of constitutional rights.

• Seek a limiting instruction when evidence is admitted for a restricted purpose.

Building the Family-Law Record

• Make the substance of excluded evidence clear through an offer of proof.

• Secure rulings on each distinct objection.

• Identify the specific hearsay exception or statutory provision at issue.

• Request findings concerning reliability when the governing statute calls for them.

• Preserve objections to relevance, hearsay, unfair prejudice, and improper character evidence separately.

• Include admitted exhibits and excluded exhibits in the appellate record.

• Ensure that sealed or confidential materials are transmitted under the proper procedures.

• Avoid relying solely on docket-sheet entries or informal comments as the court’s ruling.

Auditing the Final Order and Cost Record

• Compare the oral rendition with the signed order.

• Compare the signed order with the clerk’s bill of costs.

• Confirm that every monetary obligation has an identifiable legal and adjudicative basis.

• Check for duplicated fees, sanctions, reimbursements, or assessments.

• Verify that interest, payment deadlines, and enforcement terms conform to the judgment.

• Determine whether a discrepancy is clerical or judicial.

• Evaluate whether the trial court still has plenary power.

• Use a motion to modify, motion to correct, judgment nunc pro tunc, or appellate request only when procedurally appropriate.

• Request appellate modification when the record conclusively establishes the correct disposition and reversal is unnecessary.

• Confirm that all corrected documents conform to the modified judgment.

Citation

Ramos v. State, Nos. 03-25-00824-CR & 03-25-00826-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~88739147-4184-46e5-aef8-089699baea47~~