We are preparing for trial of a sexual abuse allegation by a 10 year old. Along with the alleged offense, we desire to prove that she was also molested by her father at other times and places. In my estimation she made the first statement that in some discernable manner described our offense to someone other than the first person (her aunt) to whom she told about the abuse (in general or with respect to some of the instances not alleged in our indictment). Obviously I need to call the aunt to describe at least a reason why the police/CPS investigation was initiated. Furthermore, the other instances are likely admissible through the live testimony of the victim under 38.37. But how much of the aunt's description of what the victim told her about dad's activities is admissible under 38.072? Since it says it applies only to statements "that describe the alleged offense", I presume no part of the aunt's testimony is admissible under that statute or as an exception to 802. Or does "alleged" refer to the fact that the extraneous offense is being alleged by the victim (rather than contained in the indictment)? It has also been my position that the aunt's testimony would be admissible apart from 38.072 to show an outcry was made and the basic nature of the complaint. Smith, 40 S.W.3d at 150; Jannise, 789 S.W.2d at 626. But several courts have at least implied that that doctrine did not survive enactment of 38.072. Any thoughts?

Since posting my inquiry, my own research has revealed some better clues to the answer. Given the fact that no one volunteered their thoughts, I guess I should post my own updated conclusion.

While not directly on point, the opinion in Beckley, 827 S.W.2d at 78 states as follows: "We do not interpret the outcry statute exception . . . as extending to an outcry of a child respecting a collateral matter or an extraneous offense." Often, however, the outcry includes details concerning more than one discrete or "discernable" offense. I am still unclear how you limit the testimony to just the offense on trial in those circumstances. Furthermore, maybe Rule 107 comes into play. But, this case does seem to indicate none of the aunt's testimony will be admissible under 38.072.