CROSSOVER: Grandfather’s Conviction Affirmed: Using ‘Continuous Abuse’ Findings and Extraneous Victim Testimony to Terminate Grandparent Access and Rebut JMC Presumptions.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Barbare, 05-24-01222-CR, January 30, 2026.

On appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Fifth Court of Appeals held that any potential error in denying a motion for directed verdict on a greater offense, such as aggravated sexual assault, is rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the jury acquits the defendant of that charge and instead convicts on a lesser-included offense. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the testimony of multiple victims, including extraneous offense testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), provides legally sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for continuous sexual abuse and indecency with a child.

Relevance to Family Law

For the family law practitioner, Munos serves as a critical evidentiary benchmark for SAPCR litigation involving allegations of intra-familial abuse. While this is a criminal affirmance, the findings of “continuous sexual abuse” and “indecency with a child” are catastrophic for any party seeking to maintain a possessory interest or grandparent access. Under Texas Family Code § 153.131, these findings effectively extinguish the presumption of Joint Managing Conservatorship. Moreover, in the context of Chapter 153, Subchapter I, these convictions provide the “clear and convincing” or “preponderance” ammunition needed to rebut the fit-parent presumption and deny grandparent access entirely under the “significant impairment” standard.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Appellant, Balentine Munos, was the patriarch of a multi-generational household, described by the children’s mother as the “provider of the family.” The family lived with Munos for several years, creating a high-trust environment. The timeline of the abuse came to light through a series of outcries beginning in 2020. D.S., Munos’s step-granddaughter, first reported abuse at age fourteen, which triggered concerns for her younger sister, N.M. By April 2023, N.M. outcried as well, leading to forensic interviews that revealed a pattern of abuse. Critically, the State also introduced testimony from a third granddaughter, M.M., who had previously denied abuse in 2019 to “protect grandpa” but later confirmed Munos had abused her as well. This testimony was admitted as extraneous offense evidence to show a system or pattern of conduct. Munos was eventually indicted for aggravated sexual assault of D.S., continuous sexual abuse of N.M., and indecency with N.M. by contact.

Issues Decided

The Court of Appeals addressed five primary issues, though the core of the opinion focused on: (1) whether the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict on the aggravated sexual assault charge was reversible error; and (2) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions for indecency with a child and continuous sexual abuse of a child.

Rules Applied

The court applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard for legal sufficiency, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding the directed verdict, the court relied on the “harmless error” doctrine established in Taylor v. State and Jones v. State, which posits that acquittal of a greater offense moots any error in failing to direct a verdict on that offense. The court also utilized Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.37 to evaluate the weight of extraneous offense testimony in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.

Application

The legal story of Munos centers on the interplay between charging strategy and jury outcomes. At trial, Munos moved for a directed verdict on the aggravated sexual assault charge involving D.S., arguing the State failed to prove penetration. The trial court denied the motion. However, the jury ultimately convicted Munos only of the lesser-included offense of indecency by contact. The appellate court noted that because the jury essentially agreed with the defense regarding the lack of evidence for the greater offense (by acquitting him of it), any error by the trial judge in letting that charge reach the jury was harmless.

In addressing the sufficiency of the evidence for the remaining counts, the court focused on the consistency and credibility of the child victims. Despite Munos’s challenges to the evidence, the court found that the forensic interviews and trial testimony of N.M. and D.S., bolstered by the extraneous testimony of M.M., created a robust record. The court emphasized that the trier of fact is the exclusive judge of credibility, and the multiple outcries established the “two or more” acts required for a continuous sexual abuse conviction.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the denial of a motion for directed verdict on an offense for which the defendant is subsequently acquitted is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction for the lesser-included offense stands because the jury’s verdict cured the potential prejudice of the overcharge.

The court further held that the testimony of the victims, supported by forensic interviews and extraneous offense evidence, was legally sufficient to support convictions for both indecency with a child and continuous sexual abuse. The court overruled all of Munos’s issues and affirmed the judgments of the trial court.

Practical Application

Litigators should utilize the “continuous abuse” finding in this case as a template for pleading “significant impairment” in grandparent access cases. When a grandparent is the perpetrator, the “fit parent” presumption afforded to the child’s parents (if they are the ones protecting the child) is at its zenith, and this case provides the evidentiary roadmap to ensure a permanent injunction against any future contact. Additionally, the admission of extraneous offense evidence (M.M.’s testimony) underscores the importance of seeking out other victims in the family tree to establish a pattern of conduct, which can be just as persuasive in a civil bench trial as it was in this criminal jury trial.

Checklists

Rebutting the JMC Presumption

• Secure the Final Judgment and Mandate from the criminal case to invoke Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131.
• File a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of conservatorship based on the “history of abuse” exception.
• Request a permanent injunction against any unsupervised access by the perpetrator.

Terminating Grandparent Access

• Plead the specific findings of “continuous sexual abuse” as a per se significant impairment to the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.
• Subpoena the forensic interviewers used in the criminal trial to testify in the SAPCR.
• Utilize the extraneous victim testimony (Rule 404(b) logic) to show the court that the behavior is a deep-seated pattern rather than an isolated incident.

Evidence Gathering

• Obtain the trial transcript from Munos to look for sworn admissions or inconsistent statements.
• Request the 38.37 notice from the District Attorney’s office to identify other potential witnesses for the civil suit.

Citation

Munos v. State, Nos. 05-24-01220-CR, 05-24-01221-CR, 05-24-01222-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

URL: Link to Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody litigation as a “death blow” to the possessory rights of a perpetrator and potentially the custodial rights of a “non-offending” parent who failed to protect. In a modification suit, a conviction for continuous sexual abuse is a “material and substantial change in circumstances” as a matter of law. Litigators should use the affirmance of the “indecency” and “continuous abuse” findings to trigger Texas Family Code § 153.004, which prohibits a court from allowing a parent (or grandparent) to have access to a child if there is a history of sexual abuse. Even if the criminal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the fact that this conviction was affirmed on sufficiency grounds means the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in family court is easily cleared. If the other parent was aware of the Munos household dynamic and failed to intervene, this case provides the factual basis to argue that the parent is also a danger to the child under the “omission” theory of abuse/neglect.

~~02b5fe8b-857a-4875-a933-9595f9f0d1d7~~