The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Jose Agosto for indecency with a child by contact. The court's decision, issued on July 28, 2026, confirms a jury's verdict that sentenced Agosto to 20 years in prison. This ruling affects Agosto and highlights the legal standards surrounding child abuse cases in Texas.

The case, identified by docket number 07-25-00370-CR, arose from allegations made by M.B., a teenager who lived with her mother and Agosto, her mother's boyfriend. The court's ruling is significant as it addresses the evidentiary challenges often faced in trials involving sensitive cases like child indecency.

In the background of this case, M.B. reported that Agosto had made her uncomfortable through inappropriate touching, which included incidents in a swimming pool and coercive sexual advances. After moving from Florida to Texas, M.B. claimed that Agosto touched her inappropriately and pressured her into sexual acts. Following her outcry to a teacher and a school counselor, the case was brought to trial.

During the trial, M.B. testified alongside other witnesses, including a forensic interviewer and a police sergeant. The jury found Agosto guilty of one count of indecency with a child by contact, while acquitting him of four other charges related to M.B. The trial court, presided over by Judge Amy Allin, faced challenges regarding the admissibility of certain testimonies.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in overruling Agosto's objections to what he claimed was “bolstering” testimony. Bolstering refers to the practice of using evidence to improperly enhance the credibility of a witness without adding substantive proof to the case. The court ruled that the testimonies in question did not constitute bolstering, as they did not imply that the witnesses believed M.B.'s account was truthful.

The court ruled, "Like the testimony in Roof, the witnesses here were not vouching for M.B.’s credibility, nor was either witness testifying that they believed her."

The judges on the panel, including Chief Justice Parker and Justices Yarbrough and Pratt, agreed that the trial court acted within its discretion. They noted that the testimonies merely indicated the consistency of M.B.'s statements over time, which does not equate to an opinion on her truthfulness. The ruling emphasized that the admission of such testimony is permissible if it does not directly assert a belief in the witness's honesty.

This ruling has implications for future cases involving similar allegations. It reinforces the idea that courts can allow certain types of testimony regarding a victim's statements, as long as they do not explicitly endorse the victim's credibility. This decision may influence how evidence is presented in child indecency cases in Texas and beyond.

The court's ruling also underscores the importance of evidentiary standards in criminal trials, particularly those involving sensitive subjects like child abuse. By affirming the trial court's decision, the appeals court has set a precedent that may guide future cases in determining what constitutes permissible testimony.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Agosto will seek further appeal options. The court did not specify any immediate next steps for the case. However, given the nature of the conviction, it is possible that he may pursue additional legal avenues. There are no related cases currently pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.