Arteaga v. State
521 S.W.3d 329
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Arteaga was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault of a child (victim was his biological daughter) and possession of child pornography; jury found special issue that he was "prohibited from marrying" the victim and assessed first‑degree sentences for sexual‑assault counts.
- The trial court’s abstract jury charge included the Family Code consanguinity provision (Tex. Fam. Code § 6.201) defining void relatives marriages; the charge did not include the Penal Code bigamy statute (Tex. Penal Code § 25.01).
- The indictments alleged the victim was a person "whom [Arteaga] was prohibited from marrying" under Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(f), which elevates sexual assault from a second‑ to first‑degree felony when the victim is someone the actor was "prohibited from marrying... under Section 25.01."
- Arteaga argued on appeal that the trial court erred by instructing the jury using the consanguinity statute rather than the bigamy statute; he further argued he was egregiously harmed because the State could not prove the bigamy‑based element (Arteaga was unmarried and the victim could not validly be his spouse).
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review, held the jury charge erred by omitting the bigamy law and including only the Family Code consanguinity instruction, found Arteaga egregiously harmed, but reformed the convictions to second‑degree sexual assault and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 22.011(f)’s phrase "under Section 25.01" requires proof tied to the bigamy statute for all listed predicates (marry; purport to marry; live under appearance of marriage) | State: only the "living under the appearance" clause must be proved by reference to § 25.01 | Arteaga: § 22.011(f) requires proof under § 25.01 for being "prohibited from marrying" (so State must show bigamy‑type facts) | Court: ambiguous grammar; read § 22.011(f) with § 25.01 — legislature intended incorporation of all bigamy prohibitions; State must prove facts that would constitute bigamy for any invocation of § 22.011(f) |
| Whether the trial court erred by including the Family Code consanguinity provision instead of the bigamy statute in the jury charge | Arteaga: inclusion was error because the definitional law applicable to "prohibited from marrying" is § 25.01, not Fam. Code § 6.201 | State: abstract instruction and application limited jury to indictment language; common usage sufficed | Held: Error — the bigamy statute is "law applicable to the case" and should have been included; the consanguinity provision was not the applicable law |
| Whether Arteaga was entitled to a new trial (whether charge error caused egregious harm) | Arteaga: jury’s only guidance defined "prohibited from marrying" incorrectly, and State could not prove the § 25.01 element—thus egregious harm | State: error harmless because abstract paragraph was ancillary and application limited verdict; Arteaga did not object at trial | Held: Arteaga was egregiously harmed — error affected the very basis of conviction and deprived him of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element |
| Appropriate remedy for harmful charge error | Arteaga: reverse and remand for new trial | State: reform judgment to second‑degree sexual assault and resentence (jury necessarily found elements of second‑degree assault) | Held: Reformation appropriate — convictions reformed to second‑degree sexual assault and case remanded for resentencing rather than ordering a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (first step: determine whether jury charge was erroneous)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutes construed by plain meaning unless ambiguous or absurd)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (abstract instruction reversible only if incorrect or misleading statement of law needed to implement application paragraphs)
- Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (definitions by statute that affect elements must be included in jury charge)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for harm review where no contemporaneous objection: egregious harm required)
- Sanchez v. State, 209 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (egregious harm factors: affects very basis of case or constitutional rights)
- Bowen v. State, 374 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reformation to lesser offense when jury necessarily found its elements)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (framework for when to reform judgment to lesser‑included offense)