Anthony Lynn Thibodeaux v. State, 10-14-00005-CR

Background

Anthony Lynn Thibodeaux convicted of three offenses (one sexual assault of a child; two counts of indecency with a child by contact) arising from acts against the same victim on the same date; sentences: 10 years (sexual assault) and 4 years each (indecency).
At trial, the jury charge defined culpable mental states incorrectly (treated sexual assault as result‑oriented and included erroneous definitions in indecency charges); the State conceded those charge errors on appeal.
Trial court admitted limited extraneous‑offense evidence from Thibodeaux’s computers and gave a broad limiting instruction (no contemporaneous objection to its scope).
Thibodeaux moved for a new trial alleging a Brady violation because the State possessed his cell phone records and failed to disclose them. The trial court denied the motion.
On appeal to the Tenth Court of Appeals, Thibodeaux argued (1) jury charge errors as to culpable mental states, (2) overly broad limiting instruction, and (3) Brady violation; the State conceded charge error but argued any error was not egregious; court reviewed unobjected‑to charge issues under the Almanza egregious‑harm standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thibodeaux)	Held
1. Jury charge definitions — sexual assault (mens rea)	Concedes charge incorrectly defined "intentionally"/"knowingly" but argues no egregious harm because application paragraph correctly stated law and intent was not contested.	Charge error caused jury confusion and harmed defense; no clarification was given.	Error conceded but not egregious; conviction affirmed.
2. Jury charge definitions — indecency (elements and mens rea)	Concedes charge misdefined indecency, sexual contact, and knowledge, but argues intent/knowledge were not contested so no egregious harm.	Combined charge errors (with sexual assault error) likely confused jury and harmed defense.	Error conceded but not egregious; convictions affirmed.
3. Scope of limiting instruction for extraneous‑offense evidence	Limiting instruction given at trial matched the oral instruction when evidence admitted; no objection to scope then, so no charge error requiring reversal.	Instruction in final charge was too broad and should have been narrowed to the specific purpose for which evidence was admitted.	No reversible error: no contemporaneous objection and trial charge mirrored initial limiting instruction; issue overruled.
4. Brady claim — undisclosed cell phone records/new trial	Brady does not apply to records reflecting appellant’s own statements/calls because appellant was aware of their content; denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion.	Failure to disclose cell phone records violated Brady and warranted a new trial.	Brady inapplicable to appellant’s own records; trial court did not abuse discretion; issue overruled.

Key Cases Cited

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (egregious‑harm standard for unobjected‑to jury charge error)
Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 (factors to consider in harm analysis)
Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706 (egregious harm affects basis of case or defensive theory)
Sanchez v. State, 209 S.W.3d 117 (egregious‑harm discussion)
Saldivar v. State, 783 S.W.2d 265 (no harm where mental culpability not contested)
Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489 (same principle regarding uncontested intent)
Reed v. State, 421 S.W.3d 24 (treatment of mens rea error when intent not disputed)
Taylor v. State, 920 S.W.2d 319 (Rule 404(b) limiting instruction purpose)
Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (no extra charge needed when no limiting instruction requested at trial)
Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (standard of review for denial of new trial)
Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (abuse‑of‑discretion review of new‑trial denial)
Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Brady does not apply when defendant already aware of the information)
Havard v. State, 800 S.W.2d 195 (Brady inapplicable to appellant’s own statements)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady rule on prosecution disclosure obligations)