CROSSOVER: Mother’s Outcry Testimony and Siblings’ Abuse Allegations Admissible in Child-Sexual-Abuse Prosecution | Ramos v. State (Tex. App.—Austin 2026)

Ramos v. State, 03-25-00826-CR, October 14, 2026.

On appeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County

Synopsis

In this child-sexual-abuse prosecution, the Third Court of Appeals upheld the admission of the victim’s outcry through her mother and testimony concerning similar abuse allegations made by the victim’s sisters. The court also held that a criminal fine is part of the sentence and must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence; because the written judgments and bills of costs included a second fine that was not orally imposed, the court deleted that fine and affirmed the judgments as modified.

Relevance to Family Law

The evidentiary rulings have direct crossover value in SAPCRs involving allegations that a parent, relative, or household member sexually abused a child or the child’s siblings. Although Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.072 and 38.37 do not govern civil family-law proceedings, the opinion illustrates two recurring issues: how to present a child’s first disclosure through an adult witness and how allegations involving siblings may bear on the risk to the subject child. In a custody case, the same evidence may be relevant to conservatorship, possession, access restrictions, supervised visitation, and the statutory consequences of family violence or sexual abuse under Texas Family Code sections 153.004 and 153.013.

The sentencing issue also reinforces a broader record-control principle. Family-law practitioners should ensure that the signed decree or order conforms to the ruling actually rendered and should promptly address discrepancies involving monetary awards, sanctions, fees, support, or possession terms while the trial court retains plenary power.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Richard Vincent Ramos was prosecuted in two cases for aggravated sexual assault of his niece, N.M. The jury convicted him of two counts, and the trial court sentenced him to 90 years’ imprisonment on each count.

N.M. and her three sisters regularly spent time at their maternal grandparents’ home, where Ramos lived. After the family moved from California to Texas, the children continued to have frequent contact with Ramos, including periods when he babysat them.

The disclosures began after the children’s mother returned from an out-of-state trip. One of the younger children reported that Ramos had hurt her. Another sister then stated that Ramos touched the girls in places he should not, connecting the conduct to a school safety presentation concerning sexual abuse. The sisters described conduct that included touching their breasts and genital areas, attempting to place his hands inside their clothing, showing them inappropriate material on his phone, and asking them to be naked.

Mother then went to N.M.’s room and asked whether Ramos had also touched her. N.M. began crying and disclosed that Ramos pulled down her pants, licked her genital area, and threatened to hurt her if she resisted or reported the abuse. At trial, N.M. described additional acts of sexual assault occurring in California and Texas.

Before testimony began, the trial court conducted a hearing outside the jury’s presence. The State designated Mother as N.M.’s outcry witness under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 and sought admission of evidence concerning the sisters’ allegations under article 38.37. Ramos objected that the trial should be limited to N.M.’s allegations and argued that the pending charges involving the sisters carried a presumption of innocence. The trial court overruled the objections and allowed Mother to testify about both N.M.’s outcry and the sisters’ disclosures.

The State also introduced evidence concerning Ramos’s phone. The extraction reflected searches and saved terms associated with preteen girls and child-sexual-abuse material, as well as cached images and links. N.M. and one of her sisters testified that Ramos had shown them sexual images on electronic devices.

After conviction, the written judgment and bill of costs in each case included two fines. Only one fine had been imposed as part of the sentence orally pronounced in Ramos’s presence.

Issues Decided

The court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing Mother, as the outcry witness, to testify about N.M.’s disclosure.

2. Whether Mother could testify about similar sexual-abuse allegations made by N.M.’s sisters, including allegations that were the subject of other pending charges.

3. Whether a presumption of innocence applicable to the pending charges categorically prevented admission of the sisters’ allegations as extraneous-offense evidence.

4. Whether the written judgments and bills of costs could include a second fine that the trial court did not orally pronounce as part of the sentence.

Rules Applied

Article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure creates a statutory hearsay exception for qualifying statements made by a child describing an alleged offense. Subject to the statute’s procedural and reliability requirements, the State may present the child’s outcry through the first qualifying adult to whom the child made a sufficiently specific disclosure of the offense.

Article 38.37 authorizes the admission of evidence that a defendant committed certain offenses involving other child victims in prosecutions for enumerated sexual offenses. Such evidence may be considered for its bearing on relevant matters, including the defendant’s character and propensity to act in conformity with that character, notwithstanding the ordinary restrictions on character evidence. Before admitting the evidence, the trial court must conduct the statutorily required hearing outside the jury’s presence and determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the necessary jury finding.

The fact that conduct is also the subject of a separate or pending prosecution does not, by itself, make the evidence inadmissible under article 38.37. The presumption of innocence protects the accused in the pending prosecution, but it does not create a categorical evidentiary bar in another proceeding when the Legislature has authorized admission and the required evidentiary showing has been made.

Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.03, section 1(a), a felony sentence must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence. A fine is punitive and constitutes part of the sentence. Consistent with Texas criminal precedent—including Taylor v. State, Burt v. State, and Ette v. State—the oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the written judgment. An appellate court may modify the judgment to make the written record conform to the sentence actually pronounced.

Application

The trial court held a hearing outside the jury’s presence before Mother testified. Mother described the sequence in which the children made their disclosures: the younger sisters first reported inappropriate conduct, after which Mother asked N.M. whether Ramos had also touched her. N.M. became emotional and gave a specific description of sexual contact and accompanying threats. The trial court determined that Mother could present N.M.’s qualifying outcry under article 38.072.

The sisters’ allegations involved conduct similar to the charged abuse, occurred within the same extended-family setting, and concerned other child victims who had regular access to Ramos. Article 38.37 supplied the governing mechanism for admitting those allegations. Their connection to pending charges did not remove them from the statute or create an automatic exclusion based on the presumption of innocence.

The mother’s testimony was not the State’s only evidence. N.M. and one of her sisters testified at trial, other witnesses described behavioral changes and the children’s reluctance to stay at their grandparents’ home, and the State introduced evidence recovered from Ramos’s phone. The challenged testimony therefore appeared within a broader evidentiary record rather than as an unsupported accusation presented in isolation.

The written-sentence issue required a different analysis. The trial court had orally imposed only one fine in each case, but the corresponding written judgment and bill of costs listed a second fine. Because a fine is part of the criminal sentence, the second fine could not be added administratively after sentencing. The appellate court treated the oral pronouncement as controlling and modified the documents to delete the unauthorized fine.

Holding

The court upheld the admission of Mother’s testimony concerning N.M.’s outcry. The trial court followed the statutory process for determining whether the child’s disclosure could be presented through an outcry witness under article 38.072.

The court also rejected the challenge to Mother’s testimony concerning the sisters’ allegations. Article 38.37 authorized evidence of qualifying sexual offenses involving other child victims, and the existence of pending charges arising from those allegations did not categorically prevent their admission.

The court sustained the sentencing complaint. Because the trial court did not orally pronounce the second fine in Ramos’s presence, that fine was not part of the lawful sentence and could not remain in either the written judgment or the bill of costs. The court modified the judgments and bills of costs to delete one fine and affirmed the convictions as modified.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Ramos is most useful as a framework for organizing child-abuse evidence rather than as direct authority applying the criminal evidentiary statutes in a SAPCR. A civil court must use the Texas Rules of Evidence, the Family Code, and the procedural rules applicable to the family case.

Texas Family Code section 104.006 may provide a civil hearsay pathway for a statement made by a child 12 years of age or younger that describes alleged abuse against the child. Counsel should be prepared to establish the statute’s reliability, availability, and corroboration requirements rather than assuming that a criminal outcry designation will carry over into the family case.

A sibling’s disclosure can be highly relevant even when the pending SAPCR concerns another child. Evidence that a parent, relative, paramour, or household member abused one child may bear directly on the safety of all children who would be exposed to that person during possession. The evidence may affect the best-interest determination, the appointment of conservators, geographic and exchange conditions, supervised access, and restrictions designed to prevent contact between the children and the alleged perpetrator.

Practitioners should separate three evidentiary questions:

1. Is the witness competent to testify from personal knowledge about what the witness observed?

2. Is the child’s out-of-court statement admissible under a statute, a hearsay exclusion, or a hearsay exception?

3. Is the underlying conduct relevant and admissible to prove risk, family violence, sexual abuse, or another material issue?

Do not treat relevance as a substitute for a hearsay exception. Likewise, do not assume that a hearsay exception resolves Rule 403, authentication, notice, or procedural objections.

Finally, compare the oral ruling, docket sheet, reporter’s record, proposed order, and signed order. In family litigation, discrepancies can involve far more than costs. A written order may add, omit, or materially alter child-support amounts, retroactive support, attorney’s fees, injunctions, conservatorship rights, or possession provisions. The safest practice is to identify the discrepancy immediately and invoke the appropriate corrective procedure before plenary power expires.

Checklists

Presenting a Child’s Disclosure

• Identify the child’s age when the statement was made.
• Determine who first received a sufficiently specific disclosure of the alleged abuse.
• Separate the initial disclosure from later forensic interviews, counseling statements, and litigation-related retellings.
• Identify the precise hearsay exception or statutory mechanism for each statement.
• Evaluate Texas Family Code section 104.006 in a SAPCR involving a qualifying child.
• Develop evidence of the statement’s time, content, circumstances, and reliability.
• Determine whether the child will testify and whether special accommodations are necessary.
• Identify corroborating medical, forensic, electronic, behavioral, or eyewitness evidence.
• Provide all required disclosures and notices sufficiently before the hearing or trial.
• Request preliminary evidentiary rulings outside the presence of the jury when appropriate.

Using Sibling-Abuse Evidence in a SAPCR

• Plead the safety, family-violence, sexual-abuse, and best-interest issues with sufficient specificity.
• Establish the relationship between the alleged perpetrator, the subject child, and each sibling.
• Show how the children would be exposed to the same person, residence, or circumstances.
• Identify nonhearsay evidence supporting each sibling’s allegation.
• Obtain relevant forensic-interview, medical, counseling, law-enforcement, and electronic records through proper process.
• Address confidentiality, privilege, sealing, and redaction requirements before offering sensitive records.
• Prepare a witness-by-witness evidentiary chart identifying relevance, personal knowledge, and hearsay grounds.
• Anticipate Rule 403 objections and explain the evidence’s connection to current child-safety decisions.
• Request narrowly tailored possession, supervision, exchange, and no-contact provisions supported by the evidence.
• Avoid relying on criminal article 38.37 as though it directly governs a civil family proceeding.

Preserving Evidentiary Error

• Obtain a ruling on each specific objection.
• Ensure the trial objection matches the complaint intended for appeal.
• Distinguish objections based on hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, personal knowledge, and statutory noncompliance.
• Request a running objection only after clearly identifying its scope.
• Make an offer of proof when evidence is excluded.
• Secure a reporter’s record of preliminary evidentiary hearings.
• Request limiting instructions when evidence is admissible for only a particular purpose.
• Preserve challenges to both the evidence and the procedure used to admit it.

Confirming the Signed Family-Law Order

• Compare the signed order with the trial court’s oral rendition.
• Review the reporter’s record and any written memorandum ruling.
• Confirm all child-support, medical-support, and retroactive-support amounts.
• Verify attorney’s fees, sanctions, interest, and costs.
• Check conservatorship rights and duties paragraph by paragraph.
• Compare the possession schedule with the ruling announced at trial.
• Confirm supervision, exchange, geographic, and no-contact conditions.
• Calendar plenary-power and appellate deadlines immediately.
• Use a motion to correct, modify, or reform the order when appropriate.
• Ensure that any correction is reflected in all related orders and enforcement documents.

Citation

Ramos v. State, Nos. 03-25-00824-CR & 03-25-00826-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The principal crossover is procedural: allegations involving a child or the child’s siblings require separate analysis of the declarant, the witness through whom the statement will be offered, the applicable hearsay pathway, and the relevance of the underlying conduct. Articles 38.072 and 38.37 establish criminal procedures and do not independently authorize admission in a divorce or SAPCR. In family court, counsel should instead consider Family Code section 104.006, the Texas Rules of Evidence, and the Family Code provisions governing sexual abuse, family violence, conservatorship, and access.

The sibling evidence may arise when one child is the subject of the pending custody dispute but another child reports abuse by a parent, relative, paramour, or household member. The proponent should establish the evidentiary basis for the sibling’s statement and then connect the alleged conduct to the subject child’s safety, exposure, and best interest. When advance admissibility questions are substantial, counsel may request a hearing outside the jury’s presence and obtain express rulings on the statutory and evidentiary predicates.

The judgment-modification component provides a second crossover. When a signed family-law order does not accurately reflect the ruling rendered, counsel should promptly seek correction through the procedure available at that stage—such as a motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment, a judgment nunc pro tunc for a true clerical error, or appellate modification when the record permits. The critical first step is to determine whether the discrepancy is clerical or judicial and to act within the applicable plenary-power and appellate deadlines.

~~ee9b697b-3685-4f1a-88bf-c1034089ba8c~~