Magnus Vance Moore v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-23-00345-CR

Magnus Vance Moore, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2017-1815-C1

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mangus Vance Moore was convicted of sexual assault of a child and

sentenced to seven years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011(a)(2). We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In one issue on appeal, Moore complains that the trial court erred in

admitting the medical report from the State’s witness, Dr. Soo Battle, who

performed a physical examination of the victim, K.H., after K.H. made an outcry of sexual assault against Moore. Specifically, Moore asserts on appeal

that the report is inadmissible because it improperly bolsters K.H.’s testimony,

and it improperly determined the jury’s ultimate fact issue, that is, whether

Moore sexually assaulted K.H. These complaints, however, were not made to

the trial court. Instead, Moore asserted at trial that the report is not a proper

medical record for purposes of the hearsay exception because it is “more akin

to an offense report in that it is unreliable given her perspective[,]” and the

report is incomplete.

As the Court of Criminal Appeals has said,

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, which establishes the requirements for preserving a complaint for appellate review, governs this case. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that a specific and timely complaint was made to the trial judge and that the trial judge ruled on the complaint. The specificity requirement is met if the complaint made at trial was clear enough to the trial judge so as to permit the trial judge to take corrective action when the complaint was made. The complaining party must have informed the trial judge what was wanted and why the party was entitled to it. A complaint will not be preserved if the legal basis of the complaint raised on appeal varies from the complaint made at trial.

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

footnotes omitted). Because Moore’s complaint on appeal does not comport

with the complaint raised at trial, it is not preserved for appellate review.

Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Moore’s sole issue on appeal is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment

Moore v. State Page 2 is affirmed.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 8, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish [CR25]

Moore v. State Page 3