Following a jury trial, Donald James Tidwell appeals his convictions on two counts of aggravated child molestation1 and on three counts of child molestation.2 He argues that i the State made improper comments during its closing argument, ii the trial court abused its discretion in not forwarding to him certain confidential files that it had reviewed in camera, iii the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence about statements one of the victims made to her mother and a forensic interviewer, iv the trial court erred in overruling an objection to a cross-examination question posed to a character witness, and v the trial court erred in excluding Tidwell’s proferred evidence that one of the victims had been having sex with her boyfriend, which would have explained the State’s evidence that that victim’s hymen had been penetrated. Because the last argument has merit, we reverse Tidwell’s conviction on all counts, as the improperly-excluded evidence tainted the entire trial. Construed in favor of the verdict, Davis v. State ,3 the evidence shows that Tidwell allowed a financially-strapped family with two daughters a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old to live with Tidwell in his residence for a period of 8 months. During this period, when the parents were away or asleep, Tidwell would often invite one of the daughters into his room, where he i fondled the breasts of the 13-year-old and had her fondle his private part, ii repeatedly forced each girl to perform oral sex on him, and iii on five occasions had vaginal intercourse with the 15-year-old. He threatened to evict the girls’ family if either reported the molestations. Soon after the family moved out, the girls reported the molestations to their mother and then to a forensic interviewer.
Tidwell was indicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation oral sex from each girl and on three counts of child molestation his having the 13-year-old touch his private part, his touching her breasts, and his having intercourse with the 15-year-old. In addition to the testimony from the two girls, from their mother, and from the forensic interviewer, the State presented the testimony from an examining nurse, who testified that the 15-year-old’s vaginal hymen had scar tissue indicating penetration and that the 13-year-old’s hymen did not. The court denied Tidwell’s efforts to present evidence that the 15-year-old’s boyfriend had been having sex with her and had therefore caused the penetration injury. A jury found Tidwell guilty on all counts, resulting in two consecutive life sentences on the aggravated child molestation counts followed by three consecutive 20-year sentences on the child molestation counts. This appeal followed the denial of his motion for new trial.
