Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00149-CR
Rodney Allen Williams, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Grace Pandithurai, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 49263CR
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Rodney Allen Williams was found guilty of one count of
aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child.
The jury found the enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed
Williams’s punishment at confinement for life on each of the three counts. The
trial court sentenced him accordingly and ordered the sentences to run
consecutively. This appeal ensued. In a single issue, Williams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting his cross-examination of the
complainant regarding prior accusations. We affirm.
A. Background Facts
At the time of trial, C.F. 1 was twenty-one years old. Before C.F. was
born, her mother was in a relationship with Williams, and they had a child
together, A.W. C.F.’s mother then began a relationship with C.F.’s father, and
they had two children—C.F. and her brother. After Mother and Father
divorced, Mother and Williams became involved again. C.F. testified that
when she was around nine years old, she lived with Mother, Brother, and
Williams in a two-bedroom home in Waxahachie. C.F. and Brother shared one
bedroom, and Mother and Williams shared the other bedroom.
C.F. testified about several encounters with Williams while they lived
together in Waxahachie. She recalled that one night she woke up and Williams
was touching her vagina with his fingers underneath her clothes. There was
a loud noise, and Williams stopped and left the room. C.F. did not tell anyone
what had happened. Another time, C.F. was again in her room asleep, and
when she woke up, Williams was “tapping” his private part against C.F.’s
private part underneath her clothes. C.F. asked Williams to stop, but he did
1Because she was a minor at the time of the offense, we will use initials to refer to the complainant to
protect her identity. We will identify family members by initials or their relationship to the complainant.
Williams v. State Page 2 not. When she tried to get away, Williams pushed C.F. against the wall and
put his hands around her throat. On that same night, Williams attempted to
put his private part inside of C.F.’s private part. She described that Williams’s
private went inside of her private “a little bit,” and she started crying because
it hurt. C.F. said that on another occasion she and Brother were asleep in the
living room, and she was awakened when she felt Williams’s private part
against her ear.
C.F. testified that she told her half-sister, A.W., that Williams had put
his private part against her ear, but A.W. did not believe her. She said that
A.W. told their grandmother what C.F. had said, and both A.W. and her
grandmother laughed and joked about it. C.F. did not tell anyone else because
she did not think that anyone would believe her. A.W.’s trial testimony was
consistent with C.F.’s. She testified that when C.F. was eight or nine years
old, she told her that Williams had put his private part in her ear, and A.W.
told her grandmother what C.F. had said. A.W. stated on cross-examination
that C.F. “told a lot of lies growing up.”
C.F. testified that the encounters with Williams occurred over several
months when she was around nine years old. At some point, Williams moved
out of the house, and C.F., Mother, and Brother eventually had to move as well.
While they were packing to move, A.W. told Mother what C.F. said had
Williams v. State Page 3 happened with Williams. Mother took C.F. to another room, and C.F. told
Mother generally what had happened. Mother told C.F. that she would take
care of it. According to C.F., she never saw Williams again after he moved out
of the house. Mother testified at trial that after C.F. told her what had
happened, she made a police report. There was no evidence of that report
admitted at trial.
C.F., Mother, and Brother moved to another town. Mother and Father
reconciled, and Father lived with them for a short time. After Mother and
Father ended their relationship, Mother began dating a man named Jarvis who
eventually moved into their home.
When she was in high school, C.F. told her school counselor what had
happened with Williams. The school counselor notified local law enforcement,
and the case was referred to the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office. C.F. went to the
Ellis County Children’s Advocacy Center for a forensic interview.
Investigator Joshua Key, with the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office, observed
the interview. He testified at trial that C.F. said Williams “did bad things to
her” when she was around nine years old. Investigator Key said C.F. told the
forensic interviewer that Williams had touched her private area with his hand
on more than one occasion. She also said during the interview that Williams
had attempted to put his private part in her private part.
Williams v. State Page 4 B. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an
abuse of discretion. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009); McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Under
an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court should not disturb the trial
court’s decision if the ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.”
Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
C. Authority
Rule 412 of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that in prosecutions for
sexual assault offenses, reputation or opinion evidence of the victim’s past
sexual behavior and specific instances of the alleged victim’s past sexual
behavior are generally not admissible. See TEX. R. EVID. 412. A defendant
may not offer evidence of a specific instance of an alleged victim’s past sexual
behavior unless the court:
(A) on a motion by the defendant made outside the presence of the jury, conducts an in camera examination of the evidence in the presence of the court reporter; and
(B) determines that the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the alleged victim and that the evidence:
(i) is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the attorney representing the state;
Williams v. State Page 5 (ii) concerns past sexual behavior with the defendant and is offered by the defendant to prove consent, if the lack of consent is an element of the offense;
(iii) relates to the alleged victim’s motive or bias;
(iv) is admissible under Rule 609; or
(v) is constitutionally required to be admitted.
TEX. R. EVID. 412(d).
D. Discussion
In his sole issue, Williams argues that the trial court abused its
discretion when it prohibited him from cross-examining C.F. about a prior
accusation.
The trial court held an in camera hearing as required by Rule 412. See
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00149-CR
Rodney Allen Williams, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Grace Pandithurai, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 49263CR
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Rodney Allen Williams was found guilty of one count of
aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child.
The jury found the enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed
Williams’s punishment at confinement for life on each of the three counts. The
trial court sentenced him accordingly and ordered the sentences to run
consecutively. This appeal ensued. In a single issue, Williams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting his cross-examination of the
complainant regarding prior accusations. We affirm.
A. Background Facts
At the time of trial, C.F. 1 was twenty-one years old. Before C.F. was
born, her mother was in a relationship with Williams, and they had a child
together, A.W. C.F.’s mother then began a relationship with C.F.’s father, and
they had two children—C.F. and her brother. After Mother and Father
divorced, Mother and Williams became involved again. C.F. testified that
when she was around nine years old, she lived with Mother, Brother, and
Williams in a two-bedroom home in Waxahachie. C.F. and Brother shared one
bedroom, and Mother and Williams shared the other bedroom.
C.F. testified about several encounters with Williams while they lived
together in Waxahachie. She recalled that one night she woke up and Williams
was touching her vagina with his fingers underneath her clothes. There was
a loud noise, and Williams stopped and left the room. C.F. did not tell anyone
what had happened. Another time, C.F. was again in her room asleep, and
when she woke up, Williams was “tapping” his private part against C.F.’s
private part underneath her clothes. C.F. asked Williams to stop, but he did
1Because she was a minor at the time of the offense, we will use initials to refer to the complainant to
protect her identity. We will identify family members by initials or their relationship to the complainant.
Williams v. State Page 2 not. When she tried to get away, Williams pushed C.F. against the wall and
put his hands around her throat. On that same night, Williams attempted to
put his private part inside of C.F.’s private part. She described that Williams’s
private went inside of her private “a little bit,” and she started crying because
it hurt. C.F. said that on another occasion she and Brother were asleep in the
living room, and she was awakened when she felt Williams’s private part
against her ear.
C.F. testified that she told her half-sister, A.W., that Williams had put
his private part against her ear, but A.W. did not believe her. She said that
A.W. told their grandmother what C.F. had said, and both A.W. and her
grandmother laughed and joked about it. C.F. did not tell anyone else because
she did not think that anyone would believe her. A.W.’s trial testimony was
consistent with C.F.’s. She testified that when C.F. was eight or nine years
old, she told her that Williams had put his private part in her ear, and A.W.
told her grandmother what C.F. had said. A.W. stated on cross-examination
that C.F. “told a lot of lies growing up.”
C.F. testified that the encounters with Williams occurred over several
months when she was around nine years old. At some point, Williams moved
out of the house, and C.F., Mother, and Brother eventually had to move as well.
While they were packing to move, A.W. told Mother what C.F. said had
Williams v. State Page 3 happened with Williams. Mother took C.F. to another room, and C.F. told
Mother generally what had happened. Mother told C.F. that she would take
care of it. According to C.F., she never saw Williams again after he moved out
of the house. Mother testified at trial that after C.F. told her what had
happened, she made a police report. There was no evidence of that report
admitted at trial.
C.F., Mother, and Brother moved to another town. Mother and Father
reconciled, and Father lived with them for a short time. After Mother and
Father ended their relationship, Mother began dating a man named Jarvis who
eventually moved into their home.
When she was in high school, C.F. told her school counselor what had
happened with Williams. The school counselor notified local law enforcement,
and the case was referred to the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office. C.F. went to the
Ellis County Children’s Advocacy Center for a forensic interview.
Investigator Joshua Key, with the Ellis County Sheriff’s Office, observed
the interview. He testified at trial that C.F. said Williams “did bad things to
her” when she was around nine years old. Investigator Key said C.F. told the
forensic interviewer that Williams had touched her private area with his hand
on more than one occasion. She also said during the interview that Williams
had attempted to put his private part in her private part.
Williams v. State Page 4 B. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an
abuse of discretion. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009); McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Under
an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court should not disturb the trial
court’s decision if the ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.”
Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
C. Authority
Rule 412 of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that in prosecutions for
sexual assault offenses, reputation or opinion evidence of the victim’s past
sexual behavior and specific instances of the alleged victim’s past sexual
behavior are generally not admissible. See TEX. R. EVID. 412. A defendant
may not offer evidence of a specific instance of an alleged victim’s past sexual
behavior unless the court:
(A) on a motion by the defendant made outside the presence of the jury, conducts an in camera examination of the evidence in the presence of the court reporter; and
(B) determines that the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the alleged victim and that the evidence:
(i) is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the attorney representing the state;
Williams v. State Page 5 (ii) concerns past sexual behavior with the defendant and is offered by the defendant to prove consent, if the lack of consent is an element of the offense;
(iii) relates to the alleged victim’s motive or bias;
(iv) is admissible under Rule 609; or
(v) is constitutionally required to be admitted.
TEX. R. EVID. 412(d).
D. Discussion
In his sole issue, Williams argues that the trial court abused its
discretion when it prohibited him from cross-examining C.F. about a prior
accusation.
The trial court held an in camera hearing as required by Rule 412. See
TEX. R. EVID. 412(d)(2)(A). At the hearing, C.F. explained that after her
parents separated, Mother was in a relationship with Williams. After that
relationship ended, Mother resumed a relationship with Father. When Mother
and Father separated for the second time, Mother began a relationship with
Jarvis, and they were still in a relationship at the time of trial.
C.F. testified that she liked Jarvis at first, but things changed.
Williams’s counsel asked C.F. whether she had made an outcry against Jarvis,
and she replied that she had. C.F. stated that she moved out of the home before
Williams v. State Page 6 she made the outcry against Jarvis. Williams’s counsel asked C.F. if she made
the outcry against Jarvis because she was trying to get him out of her life. C.F.
responded, “No.”
William’s counsel argued that C.F. made the outcry against him because
she wanted her parents to get back together. Counsel reasoned that she also
made the outcry against Jarvis to get him out of Mother’s life. Counsel argued
to the trial court that the evidence of the outcry against Jarvis was important
to the defense to show that C.F. “uses this motive to get these people out of her
life.” He sought to introduce the past allegation against Jarvis to establish
that pattern. The trial court excluded evidence of C.F.’s past outcry against
Jarvis because the record does not show that the allegation was false.
Evidence of false prior accusations may be admissible to show a victim’s
motive or bias against the defendant. Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 566
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009). While evidence of prior accusations of sexual abuse
may be admissible to impeach the credibility of a complainant, there must be
a showing that such evidence is probative. Aleman v. State, No. 07-23-00142-
CR, 2024 WL 952066, at *3; Lempar v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 239 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2005, pet. ref’d). In order to be considered probative, there must
be evidence that the prior accusations were similar to the accusations in the
instant case and that the prior accusations were false. See Lopez v. State, 18
Williams v. State Page 7 JS.W.3d 220, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Aleman, 2024 WL 952066 at *3;
Lempar, 191 S.W.3d at 239. There was no evidence that C.F.’s prior accusation
against Jarvis was false. See Biggers v. State, No. 10-16-00064-CR, 2017 WL
1540708 at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco April 26, 2017, no pet.) Therefore, the
evidence was not probative to show a pattern that C.F. would make a false
accusation in order to get a person out of her life. See id. We cannot conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the requested evidence
and prohibiting Williams from cross-examining C.F. about the past accusation.
See id. We overrule Williams’s sole issue.
E. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: January 8, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CRPM
Williams v. State Page 8