Forensic interviewer, investigators testify at preliminary hearing in State v. Alexander Rodriguez

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court heard testimony in the State of Texas’ case against Alexander Rodriguez involving a juvenile outcry of sexual abuse dating to when the victim was a child.

At a hearing on the matter, a forensic interviewer from ChildSafe described a recorded forensic interview in which the child recounted three separate incidents she said involved the defendant, beginning at about age 6 and continuing to about age 10. The child described waking to being touched, being forced to perform sexual acts and, in one incident described as “most memorable,” being unwrapped from a blanket and then penetrated, according to the interviewer’s testimony.

The testimony matters because the forensic interview and investigative reports were the basis for the charge the state filed with the district attorney’s office. The interview included sensory and contextual details that the forensic interviewer said are important to assessing credibility in delayed-outcry cases; investigators described that the case was ultimately presented to prosecutors.

Eric Mata, a forensic interviewer with ChildSafe, testified that he followed standard protocols including rapport building, an event-narrative practice and an oath that the child promised to tell the truth. "She promised to only talk about the truth, and then we talked about why she was there," Mata said on the stand. Mata told the court the child described three incidents in the defendant’s bedroom, including manual and penile penetration and later forced oral contact, and provided sensory details such as the defendant’s genital hair, the bed and a wet hand placed on her face.

Bexar County deputies and investigators described how the case reached investigative units. Deputy Sedero Hyman, the first responder on the call, testified that his unit's role is to collect the initial information and forward it to investigators and child-protective services. "All we do is pretty much document what was given to us, forward it over to the proper channels, and they conduct an investigation," Hyman said. He testified he spoke with the child's mother at the scene, provided case numbers and notified supervisors and investigators, and that Child Protective Services (CPS) was contacted under protocol.

Detective testimony described the case as a "delayed outcry," meaning the most recent alleged incidents occurred outside the 120-hour window when SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) evidence is typically available. The investigator said that because the alleged last incident was years earlier, there was no acute SANE exam and no identifiable DNA evidence expected. The investigator also testified that he attempted to contact the defendant and that his written summary of the forensic interview and investigation was submitted to the district attorney’s office for charging review.

Defense counsel pressed investigators on steps not taken during the early response: the deputies and investigators acknowledged they did not interview the alleged victim at the scene, did not collect physical items from the family or defendant’s residence, did not extract data from phones, and did not review all initial body-camera footage before trial testimony. Deputies said they provided the written report to investigators and that investigators followed up and arranged the forensic interview.

No final adjudicative ruling was made at the hearing. The court received the forensic-interviewer testimony and other witness evidence and indicated it would hear further argument; the outcry-witness testimony was managed under the court’s evidentiary procedures and the hearing was continued with some witnesses held for the afternoon.

The case file and investigative reports—including the forensic interview, the investigator’s summary and the initial patrol report—were entered into the record for the district attorney's review prior to the court's finding that sufficient evidence existed to proceed with charges.

A court schedule was set for additional testimony and argument; the transcript shows the court paused and planned to resume later in the day.