Texas Courts of Appeals
Olvera v. State
No. 14-23-00209-CR 4/23/24
Issue:
Did the trial court err by allowing a detective to testify as an outcry witness when the victim was more than 17 years of age at the time of the outcry in the defendant’s aggravated sexual assault of a child trial?
Holding:
No. The Court concluded “that an outcry witness may be designated when the child declarant is younger than 18 years of age at the outcry. Because there was affirmative evidence that the complainant here was 17 years old at the time of her outcry, she qualified as a child declarant under the outcry statute, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by designating the detective as the outcry witness.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
The court of appeals followed other courts of appeals in holding that a child/declarant must make her outcry before she turns 18 years of age. It is not at all clear that is what the Legislature intended. As the years have gone by, the Legislature has consistently increased the period of limitations for the most serious sexual offenses committed against children, to the point that many child sex offenses now carry no statute of limitations. Perhaps, then, “child” merely means the person against whom the offense was committed when she was a “child.” Prosecutors of child sex offenses should keep this decision in mind when prosecuting cases involving delayed outcries. It will be interesting to see if the Court of Criminal Appeals will wish to review this decision.
State v. Newton
No. 13-22-00616-CR; -00617-CR 4/18/24
Issue:
Did the trial court err by granting defendant’s motion to suppress in a hearing on DWI and Duty on Striking a Fixture after finding the defendant “was not arrested in a suspicious place because he was at his home”?
Holding:
Yes. After reviewing a number of cases with similar fact patterns, the Court noted that just because the defendant “was at his home does not prevent it from being a suspicious place.” The Court concluded that “the trial court erred by concluding that [the defendant] was not in a suspicious place because he was in his home. Accordingly, the trial court erred in suppressing [the defendant’s] arrest and the subsequently obtained evidence.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is an excellent decision. First of all, the court held that Art. 14.03(a)(1) does not include a requirement of exigent circumstances, squarely holding what the plurality (non-binding) opinion recently left unanswered in State v. McGuire. The Court of Criminal Appeals will probably want to review this holding. The court of appeals followed other courts in holding that a home can be a “suspicious place,” for the purposes of Art. 14.03(a)(1). In reviewing (and hopefully upholding) the exigent-circumstances holding, the Court of Criminal Appeals will hopefully also uphold the suspicious-place holding. In the meantime, this decision should be very helpful in DWI prosecutions and other vehicular-crimes prosecutions.
Wade v. State
No. 03-23-00389-CR 4/19/24
Issue:
In a motion to revoke hearing, was the evidence legally insufficient to establish that the defendant was the same person placed on probation?
Holding:
No. While no witness testified that they were present when the defendant was placed on probation, there was ample evidence of identification presented through documentation including a photograph of the defendant in the probation file. “Based on the evidence of identity presented at the adjudication hearing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the State met its burden of proof when the greater weight of the credible evidence created a reasonable belief that Wade was the person placed on deferred adjudication probation in 2019 for the underlying offense.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case is a good reminder that pretty much any fact—including a defendant’s identity—can be proven in a number of different ways—by direct evidence, by circumstantial evidence, by admissible hearsay or non-hearsay evidence, by documentation, and so on. This case is also probably a good reminder not to forget or take for granted even the most simple of facts—including the defendant’s identity.
Morganfield v. State
No. 04-22-00567-CR 4/24/24
Issue:
In a sexual assault of a child trial, was the defendant entitled to the “three-year gap” affirmative defense instruction under Penal Code § 22.011(e)(2)(A) when at the time of the offense the defendant was 19 years old, and the victim was 16 years old?
Holding:
No. “We calculate the age difference between the victim’s and the defendant’s birth dates. At the time of the offense, March 29, 2020, the age difference between [the victim] and [the defendant] was three years and sixty-eight days. Therefore, the evidence fails to raise all elements of the affirmative defense.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
In reaching its holding, the court of appeals followed a 1999 decision of the Austin Court of Appeals (that was not reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals). The court of appeals did not find persuasive a 1979 decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dealing with when a child is “fourteen years or younger” for the purposes of the offense of injury to a child. Therefore, in this case, the court of appeals held that the three-year affirmative defense applied from birth date to birth date, and not age to age. This should be very helpful to prosecutors who handle child sex offenses, but keep watch over the decision to see if the Court of Criminal Appeals wishes to review it.
Announcements
Job Postings
The Texas District and County Attorneys Association is now accepting applications for the positions of Executive Director and Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor. For more information, click the link for each position.
Sign Up for the Round Up!
TDCAA now offers a weekly email subscription service called “The Round Up” containing news articles from around the state and nation of interest to Texas prosecutors and their allied professionals in law enforcement and the legal community. To begin receiving that information in your inbox every Thursday morning, sign up here.