Seeid. (citing In re W.E.J , 494 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Tex. App.–Waco 2015, pet. denied) ). We agree with the reasoning of our sister courts both in Gonzalez and W.E.J. and likewise hold that Davis is limited by its facts and inapplicable to the issue Appellant raises in the case at hand.

hibition against providing copies of forensic victim interviews; all those decisions held that the State provided reasonable access to such interviews by providing defense counsel with an opportunity to view them before their presentation at trial, particularly if counsel's cross-examination of the victim demonstrated the access did not impair the defense. See In re State ex rel. McCain, 670 S.W.3d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2023, orig. proceeding); McCloure v. State, No. 06-21-00030-CR, 2021 WL 5933158, at *3-4 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Dec. 16, 2021, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Gonzalez v. State, 522 S.W.3d 48, 59-60 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); In re State, No. 08-16-00106-CR, 2017 WL 1511338, at *3 (Tex. App.-El Paso Apr. 26, 2017, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication); Flores v. State, No. 04-14-00915-CR, 2015 WL 5730263, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Sept. 30, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re W.E.J., 494 S.W.3d 178, 179-80 (Tex. App.-Waco 2015, pet. denied); see also Dickens v. Ct. of Appeals for 2d Supreme Jud. Dist. of Tex., 727 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (holding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied defense request for copy and expert review of videotaped forensic interview of child victim before trial where prosecution had already complied with Article 38.071 admissibility predicate by permitting defense counsel and defendant's forensic child psychologist to view the interview). c. Brady v. Maryland

As a result, several courts, while "considering reasonable availability in the light of the Sixth Amendment, have consistently held that making available forensic interviews for defense counsel constitutes making the records reasonably available." Gonzalez v. State, 522 S.W.3d 48, 59 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see In re W.E.J., 494 S.W.3d 178, 179 (Tex. App.-Waco 2015, pet. denied) ("[W]e cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request to have the forensic interviews of the child victims translated and transcribed for the jury."). 7

Courts have construed Article 39.15 as prohibiting the reproduction of evidence depicting or describing abuse of or sexual conduct by a child or minor. SeeIn re State of Texas , No. 08-16-00106-CR, 2017 WL 1511338, at *3 (Tex.App.—El Paso April 26, 2017, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication); In re Ligon , No. 09-14-00262-CR, 2014 WL 2902324, at *1-2 (Tex.App.—Beaumont June 26, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see alsoFlores v. State , No. 04-14-00915-CR, 2015 WL 5730263, at *3 (Tex.App.—San Antonio September 30, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re W.E.J. , 494 S.W.3d 178, 179-80 (Tex.App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied). We adhere to that interpretation of Article 39.15.

In In Matter of W.E.J. , the Waco Court of Appeals held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it interpreted Article 39.15 to bar the creation of a translated transcript of children's forensic interviews to play before the jury. 494 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied). Instead, the forensic interviews were reasonably available when: "appellant's counsel viewed the video of the forensic interviews and used his own translator to transcribe and translate word for word the interviews of the child victims from Spanish to English."