APPELLANT

APPELLEE

A jury convicted Jose Cruz of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (1989). The judge assessed punishment at twelve years' incarceration. Appellant's sole point of error is that the trial court erred by not including a limiting instruction regarding outcry statements. We hold that no instruction was necessary and affirm the conviction.

The testimony describing the child's outcry statements was admitted into evidence pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.072 (Supp. 1992). Appellant concedes that the testimony was admissible; he urges that the evidence was admissible only for a limited purpose. Appellant contends that outcry testimony is not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted because it is hearsay, and that the jury should have been instructed to consider the evidence only as outcry, not for its truth of its contents. We disagree. The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that outcry testimony is generally admissible, not merely admissible for "limited purposes." Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (interpreting art. 38.072). Also, the court has specifically stated that outcry testimony is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted in the testimony. Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Therefore the requested limiting instruction was properly refused. Appellant's sole point of error is overruled.

We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Jimmy Carroll, Chief Justice

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: April 22, 1992

[Do Not Publish]