Witness testifies that alleged abuse by father began around age 6; defense highlights inconsistencies

SAN ANTONIO — In a trial in the 220th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, a witness identified as Emily Rodriguez testified that her father, Alexander Rodriguez, repeatedly touched her beginning when she was about 6 and continuing until she was about 10, the witness told the jury during direct examination.

The testimony followed the reading of an indictment that charges Alexander Rodriguez with multiple counts of indecency with a child and related offenses. Judge Stephanie Boyd administered the jury oath and presided over evidentiary disputes and witness questioning. The state was represented at the proceeding by prosecutors Zack Dunn and Rick Pena; the defense team included Clarissa Fernandez Pratt and Marissa Giovancho.

Emily Rodriguez testified that the incidents typically occurred when she stayed “every other weekend” at her grandmother’s house and that they took place in her father’s bedroom at night. She described being positioned with her back to the wall and said she repeatedly felt contact from her father during those nights. "I would just lay there, you know, just kinda, like, wait for it to stop," she told the court.

On direct, Rodriguez described a progression of conduct she said began as touching and later included removal of clothing and contact with her genital area. She testified the episodes sometimes hurt and said they stopped after she began menstruating. "It was really bad. I'm I'm not gonna explain it. It's really bad," she said when asked how the episodes affected her.

The defense pressed for inconsistencies in Rodriguez’s account. Defense counsel introduced and questioned her about calendars, Child Protective Services (CPS) and ChildSafe records, earlier statements to prosecutors and counselors, and text messages and letters. Counsel pointed to entries in CPS records and prior interviews that indicated different timelines, noting that some records said the abuse continued until the witness was 12. The witness acknowledged variations in statements about the age when the alleged conduct stopped and when she started her period.

The court received several defense exhibits during the hearing. The judge admitted a packet of photographs identified by the defense as exhibits 7 through 22 and admitted defendant exhibits 23 and 24 (two letters the witness said she wrote to her father). The court denied admission of one set of defense materials the parties litigated (defense exhibit 3). The judge also ruled on multiple objections during both direct and cross-examination; numerous questions and answers were sustained or overruled on hearsay and leading-question grounds.

Prosecutors waived opening statements and called Rodriguez as the state’s first witness. The witness described telling a high‑school counselor and later law enforcement and prosecutors; she said nightmares and worsening mental health led her to disclose the abuse. Defense counsel repeatedly questioned the witness about prior outcries, prior interviews with CPS and ChildSafe, and whether specific details—such as reports of penetration or a particular odor the witness later mentioned—had been raised earlier.

Judge Boyd gave routine courtroom and jury instructions, including admonitions about note taking and the limits on juror conduct. She recessed the jury for a break mid‑trial and later returned the panel to continue questioning. At the end of the day’s testimony the witness was allowed to remain "subject to recall," the judge told the parties.

The trial record for this hearing includes the indictment read into the record and multiple admitted defense exhibits (photographs and letters) as well as CPS/ChildSafe records that defense counsel used on cross‑examination. The state indicated it had interviewed the witness and taken recorded statements; the defense used those records at length in cross‑examination to challenge memory and timing details.

The trial remains in progress; the witness was not excused and may be recalled, the judge said. Further proceedings, including additional witnesses and legal arguments, were scheduled to continue at the court’s direction.