Casey v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7146
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Casey was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, with four prior felonies enhancing punishment.
- Sentences: imprisonment for forty years on each count, to run concurrently.
- Victims included G.H. and P.L., both children younger than fourteen at the times of alleged offenses.
- Counts II, III, IV, V pertain to various alleged sexual offenses against G.H.; Count VI covers an aggravated sexual assault of P.L.
- Casey raised five issues on appeal, including challenges to the constitutionality of § 21.02 and to joinder/severance decisions.
- The court overruled Casey’s issues and affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 21.02 violate jury unanimity or due process? | Casey asserts lack of unanimity on acts; treats acts as elements requiring unanimity. | State contends acts are modes of accomplishing the same element, not separate elements. | Statute complies with both unanimity and due process; acts are modes, not elements. |
| Was the proposed jury instruction on unanimity errorfully denied? | Jury must unanimously agree on which acts and when they occurred. | Instruction consistent with § 21.02 and state law; no error. | No error; instruction properly reflected the law. |
| Did the trial court err in denying severance of Count VI from other counts? | Joinder prejudicial because offenses are not part of the same episode. | Joinder proper under § 3.02(a) and § 3.01; offenses part of the same or similar pattern. | The counts could be joined as part of the same criminal episode; no reversible prejudice. |
| Did juror E.P. qualify as a Montgomery County voter and was lack of address accuracy corrupt conduct? | Juror may have lacked residence; address misreporting potentially corrupt conduct. | Juror resided in Montgomery County; misstatement was in good faith; no corrupt conduct. | Juror was a Montgomery County resident; no corrupt conduct; issue overruled. |
| Do cumulative errors require reversal? | Multiple errors, including seating and testimony issues, warrant mistrial/new trial. | No reversible errors; any errors were not cumulative or impactful. | No reversible or cumulative error; conviction and sentences affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reckart v. State, 323 S.W.3d 588 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2010) (unanimity applied to modes of commission not elements)
- Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 846 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (unanimity on elements; acts as means not required)
- Jefferson v. State, 189 S.W.3d 305 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (modes or means may be non-unanimous)
- White v. State, 208 S.W.3d 467 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (due process when alternate means are morally equivalent)
- Jacobsen v. State, 325 S.W.3d 733 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (statutory interpretation in due-process analysis)
- Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (juror qualification and residency requirements)
- Llamas v. State, 12 S.W.3d 469 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (automatic prejudice concerns with joinder)
- Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (disregard instruction sufficiency after mistrial for collateral prejudice)