Jeremy J. Robert v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: July 16, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00091-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00091-CR

Jeremy J. Robert, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Susan N. Kelly, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2019-2249-C2

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeremy J. Robert was convicted of the offense of continuous sexual abuse

of a young child and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Because the trial court

did not err in excluding evidence proposed by Robert, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

In May of 2019, at the end of the school year, G.D., Robert’s step-

daughter, made an outcry of continuous sexual abuse against Robert after G.D. had called Robert on a friend’s cell phone to ask what they would be having for

dinner. Robert became angry with G.D. and said he would beat her “ass”

because she was using a cellphone in school, which she was not permitted to

do. In his sole issue on appeal, Robert complains that the trial court erred in

preventing him from presenting evidence that G.D. had also made an outcry of

prior sexual assaults by G.D.’s “grandfather,” Robert’s father, in an effort to

get out of trouble for possessing a cell phone at her aunt’s house, which G.D.

was also not allowed to have. Robert’s defensive theory was that each time

G.D. was in trouble, she would lie about being sexually assaulted.

Immediately prior to trial, the State asked the trial court to determine

the admissibility of a potential line of questioning by Robert regarding G.D.’s

outcry of prior sexual abuse by her grandfather. The trial court sustained the

State’s objection to the introduction of that type of evidence but allowed Robert

to make a bill of exception. Robert questioned G.D. outside the presence of the

jury about her outcry against her grandfather. Other witnesses throughout

the trial were also questioned outside the presence of the jury. On the last day

of the trial, the defense again requested permission to ask G.D. about her

outcry against her grandfather. The trial court denied the request.

A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion, and there is no abuse of discretion if the trial court's ruling

Robert v. State Page 2 is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Davis v. State, No. AP-77,106,

2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 194, at *26 (Crim. App. Mar. 12, 2026) (publish).

Further, if the trial court's ruling is correct on any applicable theory of law, it

will not be disturbed. Id.

On appeal, Robert contends the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth

Amendment and Rule 613(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence permit the

admission of G.D.’s outcry of prior sexual abuse. Robert sought admission of

the evidence pursuant to the Confrontation Clause but did not seek admission

of the evidence pursuant to Rule 613(b). Thus, any assertion of admission

through Rule 613 is waived and will not be discussed. See White v. State, 549

S.W.3d 146, 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“The proponent of the evidence must

identify to the trial court the basis of admissibility for the proffered evidence.”);

Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“A complaint

will not be preserved if the legal basis of the complaint raised on appeal varies

from the complaint made at trial.”).

Evidence of false prior accusations may be admissible pursuant to the

Confrontation Clause to show a victim's motive or bias against a defendant.

See Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Lopez v.

State, 18 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). However, there must be a

showing that such evidence is probative. Lopez, 18 S.W.3d at 223, 225; Lempar

Robert v. State Page 3 v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 239 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. ref'd). To be

considered probative, there must be proof that the prior accusations were false

and were similar to the accusations in the case being tried. Lopez, 18 S.W.3d

at 223, 225-226; Lempar, 191 S.W.3d at 239.

There was no evidence in this record that G.D.'s accusation against her

grandfather was false. G.D. testified outside the presence of the jury that her

grandfather began sexually assaulting her when she was young. The sexual

assaults stopped when her “grandmother” changed jobs and was home at night.

G.D. testified the assaults occurred before Robert began sexually assaulting

her. There was no evidence to the contrary.

Robert contends, however, there was a good faith belief that the

accusations against the grandfather were false because: 1) G.D. failed to make

an outcry against the grandfather earlier; 2) G.D. did not make an outcry

against her grandfather at the forensic interview or at the medical exam

conducted regarding the allegations made against Robert; 3) the indictment

was not returned against the grandfather until three years after the outcry

was made and was returned only one month before the original date for

Robert’s trial; and 4) G.D. allegedly threatened another family member with a

report of abuse when another phone was taken away from her. 1 But a good

1 The State agreed that the jury could hear this evidence.

Robert v. State Page 4 faith belief of falsity is not the standard to determine whether the evidence is

probative in this situation. Proof of falsity is the standard to determine

whether the evidence is probative, see Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d at 226, and

there was no proof that the allegations G.D. made against her grandfather

were false. Thus, the evidence of G.D.’s outcry of prior sexual assaults by her

grandfather was not probative. 2

Because the evidence was not probative, the Confrontation Clause does

not demand its admissibility. See id. Consequently, we conclude the trial court

did not abuse its discretion by excluding the requested evidence of G.D.’s outcry

of prior sexual abuse by her grandfather, and Robert’s sole issue is overruled.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 16, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CRPM

2 Because Robert failed to meet the first prong for evidence to be considered probative, we need not discuss the second prong, whether the accusations against the grandfather were the same as those made against Robert.

Robert v. State Page 5