Bell v. State, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8540

Bell was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of sexual performance by a child; sentences were fifteen years each and stacked in the aggravated assaults.
The complainant, age 12 at the offense and 13 at trial, testified Bell directed and benefited from acts at a hotel room and later at a nude club.
Bell controlled finances and living arrangements; he drove the complainant and another woman to the Diamonds Cabaret and took the money earned.
The complainant performed oral sex for Bell, and Bell sometimes arranged or induced her participation in sexualized performances at the club.
Bell testified he believed the complainant was 19 and denied forcing or arranging encounters, though he admitted some sexual acts.
The trial court admitted the complainant’s birth certificate for age proof and Bell challenged multiple trial rulings on sufficiency and procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual performance by a child	Bell argues the evidence fails to show inducement or age awareness.	Bell contends the State bears insufficient proof of inducement and age-related elements.	Inducement proven; age knowledge not required by statute.
Knowledge of age as an element of guilt	State tasked with proving age and knowledge of sexual nature.	State must prove defendant knew victim’s age under the statute.	No requirement to prove in this offense that Bell knew age; age knowledge is not an element.
Supplemental jury instruction on mistake of fact	Instruction misstates law by assuming contested age knowledge.	Instruction was proper and did not prejudicially misstate the law.	No error in supplemental instruction; it correctly stated law for these offenses.
Effect of supplemental instruction on aggravating offenses	Instruction improperly reduced State's burden in aggravated offenses.	Instruction correctly reflected law; age proof was satisfied by birth certificate.	Instruction valid; State proved age via evidence and did not err.
Simultaneous enhancement using same prior conviction	Using a single prior conviction to enhance all three cases simultaneously is unauthorized.	Section 12.46 permits same prior conviction to enhance offenses tried together.	Permissible; same prior conviction may be used to enhance multiple indictments tried together.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia standard applied for sufficiency)
Dornbusch v. State, 156 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2005) (inducement can be nonverbal; substantial evidence supports)
Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (no scienter required for victim age in sexual offenses)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (harm analysis for supplemental charges)
Mateo v. State, 935 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996) (affirmative defense context for mistake in similar offenses)
Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (jury follows trial court instructions on guilt determination)