How cited: Rodriguez v. State · Go Syfert

Rodriguez v. State (1991)

green · 335 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Yellow 1 Green 49
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199120082026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
yellow In the Interest of R.L.C. and J.M.C., Jr., Children v. . (2026)
But See · txctapp4 · signal: but see
Soto v. State, 736 S.W.2d 823, 827 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, pet. ref’d); but see Rodriguez v. State, 802 S.W.2d 716, 721 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990) (holding that child was not available to testify within the meaning of art. 38.072 where the child was at courthouse but could only communicate through one-way closed-circuit television), aff’d as reformed, 819 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim.
green Scott Edward Vanzandt v. the State of Texas (2025)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Kenneth Walden Reel v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2024)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
App. 2005); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Justin Riordan v. State (2017)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
App. 2005) (“[The first adult a child confides in regarding the abuse] may recite the child’s out-of-court statements concerning the offense, and that testimony is substantive evidence of the crime.”); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Jose L. Jimenez v. State (2016)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Bays, Michael Jay (2013)
Rule Authority · Tex. Crim. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 , 479 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (“An outcry witness may testify ... about the victim’s out-of-court description of the offense.”); Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137, 140, 144 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (describing outcry statute as permitting “hearsay testimony” from an “outcry witness”); Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (outcry “witness may recite the child’s out-of-court statements concerning the offense”); Rodrigu…
green Escamilla v. State (2011)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
green Ashley Malone Spikes v. State (2011)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Rodriguez v. State , 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Marcelino Gamboa v. the State of Texas (2024)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Aaron Van Brown v. the State of Texas (2024)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Id. § 2(b)(3). “[O]utcry testimony admitted in compliance with [Article] 38.072 is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, meaning it is considered substantive evidence, admissible for the truth of the matter asserted in the testimony.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
en banc
green Colin David Luttoschka v. the State of Texas (2024)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Allan Ramon Martinez v. the State of Texas (2024)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Eubanks v. State, 326 S.W.3d 231, 241 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Kevin Boykin v. the State of Texas (2023)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Stephanie testified that T.B. told her, not just once, but twice, that Appellant touched his “pee-pee.” “A child victim’s outcry statement alone can be sufficient to sustain a conviction for a sexual offense.” Chavez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, no pet.) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Charles Bradshaw v. the State of Texas (2023)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Rosalio Tavarez v. the State of Texas (2023)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
en banc
green Molinar v. Lumpkin (2023)
Rule Authority · W.D. Tex.
Also under Texas case law, “outcry testimony admitted in compliance with Art. 38.072 is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, meaning it is considered substantive evidence, admissible for the truth of the matter asserted in the testimony.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Rodrick Bernard Spence v. State (2020)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim.
green Charles Edward Burke v. State (2020)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Juan Gabriel Cervantes v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Dakota Scott Wilson v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
The victim told the interviewer that these acts occurred more than once or “all the weeks.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
holding child victim’s outcry statement alone sufficient to support conviction for aggravated sexual assault
green Mario Carnero Martinez v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Chavez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, no pet.) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Robert Ortiz v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
And, “outcry testimony alone can be sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated sexual assault.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873-74 (Tex. Crim.
green Ruben Gonzales v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · signal: cf.
Martinez v. State, 524 S.W.3d 344, 349 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. ref’d); cf. Saldaña v. State, 287 S.W.2d 43, 60 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, pet. ref’d) (“[I]t is well established that outcry testimony is substantive evidence of guilt that is sufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Delfino Torres-Vasquez v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See Martinez, 178 S.W.3d at 811 (“[The first adult a child confides in regarding the abuse] may recite the child’s out-of-court statements concerning the offense, and that testimony is substantive evidence of the crime.”); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Heriberto Varelasida v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim.
green Joseph Kevin Adamick v. State (2019)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
App. 2005); Rodriguez v. State 819 S.W.2d 871, 873-74 (Tex. Crim.
green David R. Griffith v. State (2018)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim.
green Alfredo Suarez, Jr. v. State (2017)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodri- rence of pretrial publicity creates no automatic presump- guez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 872 (Tex. Crim.
green Jaime Joshua Salazar v. State (2017)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
“A child victim’s outcry statement alone can be sufficient to sustain a conviction for a sexual offense.” Chavez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, no pet.) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Ryder v. State (2017)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
And, “outcry testimony alone can be sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated sexual assault.” Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873-74 (Tex. Crim.
green Marcelino Elias Gutierrez v. State (2016)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Sidney Price Lawson v. State (2016)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Ann. art. 38.07(a) (West Supp. 2016) (providing conviction for sexual assault of a child is “supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim”); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
recognizing outcry testimony alone can be legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual assault of a child
green Marcelino Elias Gutierrez v. State (2016)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Lindberg, Timothy James (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Lindberg, Timothy James (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Kimberlin v. State, 877 S.W.2d 828, 831-32 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Timothy James Lindberg v. State (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Kimberlin v. State, 877 S.W.2d 828 , 831–32 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, pet. ref’d) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Stevie Blaschke Hanke v. State (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Donald Ernest Powell v. State (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Once a jury has made such an assessment, "an appellate court may not reevaluate the probity of [an] individual item of evidence." Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Hicks, Leonard Charles (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Ann. art. 38.07(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (providing conviction for sexual assault of a child is "supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim . . . . "); Rodrigtez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871,873 (Tex. Crim.
recognizing outcry testimony alone can be legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual assault of a child
green Talkington, Kevin D. (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871,87 (Tex. Crim.
green Talkington, Kevin D. (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871,87 (Tex. Crim.
green Leonard Charles Hicks v. State (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Ann. art. 38.07(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (providing conviction for sexual assault of a child is “supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim . . . . ”); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
recognizing outcry testimony alone can be legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual assault of a child
green Darius Edwards v. State (2014)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Darius Edwards v. State (2014)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Jeffie Melder v. State (2014)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Manuel Medellin Jr. v. State of Texas (2013)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Bays, Michael Jay (2013)
Rule Authority · Tex. Crim. App.
App. 2005) (outcry “witness may recite the child’s out-of-court statements concerning the offense”); Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 872 (Tex. Crim.
describing outcry statute as permitting “testimony” from “outcry witness”
green Juan Damas Rodriguez v. State of Texas (2013)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Matthew Mark Heslep v. State of Texas (2011)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
green Alfred Llewelyn Carty v. State (2005)
Quote Authority · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Rodriguez v. State , 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
“[O]utcry testimony admitted in compliance with Art. 38.072 is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, meaning it is considered substantive evidence, admissible for the truth of the matter asserted in the testimony.”