Court of Criminal Appeals

Crumley v. State

No. PD-0471-23                8/21/24

Issue:

In an online solicitation of a minor trial, did the defendant’s proffered testimony directly rebut either the mens rea elements of belief about underage status and intent to engage in sexual conduct that the State was required to prove?

Holding:

No. The defendant was diagnosed by the defense’s clinical psychologist with autism spectrum disorder, level one, without intellectual impairment. The defendant testified that he did not think he was communicating with a 13-year-old girl (who was in fact an undercover detective) but instead with an adult trying to “catfish” him. The defendant testified he was trying to expose the catfishing. The defense expert testified that due to the defendant’s autism, the defendant could experience rigidity of thinking that could cause him to ignore facts that did not align with his belief that he was being catfished. The trial court excluded the defense expert’s testimony on the basis that it did not rebut mens rea but was instead inadmissible diminished capacity evidence. The Court compared the facts to Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), noting that here “[t]here was no evidence that a person having the type of autism attributed to [the defendant] would be incapable of perceiving a fact (e.g., a person’s age) crucial to mens rea,” but that “the evidence would at best, suggest that autism made [the defendant] ‘incapable of re-evaluating his claimed noncriminal belief and intent.’ And [the defense expert]’s opinion about what [the defendant] believed relied almost exclusively on [the defendant]’s own self-reporting.” Read opinion.

Concurrence (Newell, J. joined by Hervey, Richardson, Walker, JJ.):

“I agree with the Court’s conclusion that [the defendant] did not sufficiently establish that his autism rebutted the State’s evidence of the requisite mens rea for the offense. That is not to say, however, that evidence of autism, including the type of autism attributed to [the defendant], could never rebut the requisite mens rea for this or other offenses. It is enough to say that in this case, [the defendant] never proffered testimony explaining how autism could have caused him to misperceive the age of the person he was communicating with. Without such testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of [the defendant]’s autism.” Read concurrence.

Commentary:

The analysis in the majority opinion is relatively short, with the majority only distinguishing this case from Ruffin, the leading case that defense lawyers cite when prosecutors point out (correctly) that Texas does not have a “diminished capacity” defense (except for insanity). This case provides a good example of when the trial judge is not required to follow the Ruffin exception. Citing to federal decisions from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the majority suggested that courts should carefully scrutinize mental-illness evidence because “[p]sychiatrists are capable of supplying elastic descriptions of mental states that appear to but do not truly negate the legal requirements of mens rea.” Prosecutors should refer to this language when they are confronted with offers of this type of expert testimony on mental illness. But be cautious in objecting to any such expert testimony. These issues are often very nuanced and complex. No longer can prosecutors just say that Texas does not have a “diminished capacity” defense and merrily move on.

Texas Attorney General Opinion Requests

RQ-0558-KP                       8/14/24

Issue:

May local governments create gun bans, which would otherwise be prohibited under the law, by working through a 501(c)(3) or other private entity? Read request for opinion.

Requested by:

House Committee on Calendars

Announcements

Now Showing — Introduction to Juvenile Law Online Course

TDCAA is proud to invite you to our first online Juvenile Law course! This course covers the fundamentals of Juvenile Law ranging from terminology all the way to juvenile trials and confidentiality. Our team of juvenile law experts are from across the state and give insight for prosecutors practicing in both rural and urban jurisdictions. The course will help prosecutors new to juvenile law as well as veteran prosecutors who would like to learn more about this often-overlooked but crucial area of our justice system. Viewers that complete the course will receive 4 hours of CLE. This course is free of cost. Click here to register for this course.