Cody Carr v. State
477 S.W.3d 335
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Carr challenges two aggravated-sexual-assault convictions involving his daughter Jane; there were two indictments consolidated for trial.
- Jane, age 10, testified to two separate incidents during Christmas break: first, anal contact with Carr; second, licking peanut butter off Carr's purported sexual organ while her eyes were covered.
- Witnesses included Jane’s mother, Jane’s grandfather, and Carr’s wife; timing and presence of witnesses conflicted but the jury credited Jane’s account.
- The jury found Carr guilty on both indictments; trial court imposed six-year sentences for each offense, to run concurrently.
- The court addressed sufficiency of the evidence and whether the indictment language “on or about” and lack of limitations affected required jury unanimity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for anal contact | Carr argues evidence insufficient | State contends evidence proves intentional contact | Evidence sufficient; Jane alone supports conviction |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for mouth contact | Carr argues lack of direct sight/identification | State asserts sensory testimony suffices | Evidence sufficient; jury could credit Jane’s sensory conclusions |
| Effect of “on or about” language on unanimity | Carr contends non-unanimous verdict possible | State argues two separate, unanimous charges; no non-unanimity | Charges properly instructed; unanimous verdict required and obtained |
Key Cases Cited
- Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (child-complainants not required to testify with perfect clarity; credibility matters remain with the jury)
- Bargas v. State, 252 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (credibility and sufficiency considerations for child-witness testimony)
- Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (jury may rely on witness credibility in assessing evidence)
- Meeks v. State, 897 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (weight and credibility issues; circumstantial evidence sufficient)
- Turro v. State, 867 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (presumption that jury resolved conflicts in favor of prevailing party)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Wicker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (verdict must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (unanimity requirement when multiple potential offenses)
- Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (date specificity not required; unanimity concerns separate offenses)
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (lies can indicate consciousness of guilt)
- Word v. State, 12 Tex. Ct. App. 174 (1882) (conducting acts to insensitize victims affects culpability)