Johnson v. State

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · 2016 · Evidence

490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation Clausecross-examinationbiasmotive to fabricateRule 412Rule 403Rule 404(b)

Facts

Johnson sought to cross-examine the complainant, H.H., about the fact that H.H. had been sexually abusing his younger sister for years and that his parents had placed him in counseling around the same period when H.H. accused Johnson of sexual assault. Outside the jury's presence, H.H. admitted both the abuse and that it was one reason he was in counseling in fall 2007. Johnson argued this evidence was relevant to show H.H.'s mental state and motive to fabricate the accusation in order to deflect negative attention and gain sympathy from his parents. The trial court allowed evidence that H.H. had counseling, depression, pornography issues, school problems, and shoplifting, but excluded any mention that the counseling stemmed from H.H.'s sexual abuse of his sister.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion, and violate Johnson's right to effective cross-examination, by barring cross-examination of the complainant about his past sexual abuse of his sister and the resulting counseling when that evidence was offered to show motive to fabricate the accusation against Johnson?

Rule

A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a prosecution witness to show bias, self-interest, or motive to fabricate, and a trial court may not prohibit otherwise appropriate cross-examination if a reasonable jury might receive a significantly different impression of the witness's credibility. Under Texas Rule of Evidence 412, evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior is admissible when it relates to the victim's motive or bias, or is constitutionally required, so long as its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice. In credibility-driven sexual assault cases, Rule 403 exclusion should be used very sparingly.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a child sexual assault trial in Dallas, the prosecution's case depends almost entirely on 14-year-old Eli Navarro's testimony. The defense seeks to ask Eli whether, shortly before he accused Devin Cross, his parents had discovered that Eli had been secretly coercing his younger cousin into sexual touching and had sent him to counseling, arguing that Eli had a reason to cast himself as a victim rather than a perpetrator.

Should the trial court permit the cross-examination?

Explanation. The majority held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to otherwise appropriate cross-examination showing a prosecution witness's bias or motive to fabricate. Evidence of a complainant's past sexual behavior may be admitted under Rule 412 when it relates to motive or bias and when its probative value outweighs unfair prejudice. Here, the proposed questioning directly supports the defense theory that the complainant accused the defendant to deflect blame and gain sympathy, so exclusion would be an abuse of discretion absent a supported reason such as harassment, confusion, or marginal relevance.