Cornet v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 105
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Cornet was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault of his eight-year-old step-daughter for allegedly digitally penetrating her genitals, digitally penetrating her anus, and causing oral contact with her anus.
- The trial court directed a verdict of acquittal on Count II (anus penetration) but the jury convicted on Counts I and III, with concurrent 10-year terms and a $7,500 fine.
- The defense sought a jury instruction on the medical-care defense under §22.011(d); the court denied it, and the court of appeals affirmed, prompting discretionary review.
- Cornet made a written statement to a detective describing an in-home examination to check for injuries, claiming he examined to see if she was okay and noted his fingers touching her anus and labia, with fingers getting wet.
- At trial, Cornet testified he only looked externally for signs of injury and did not admit to penetrating the sexual organ; the State argued the written statement constituted a confession.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding (i) the medical-care defense can apply to non-medical professionals; (ii) confession-and-avoidance doctrine applies to this defense; and (iii) sufficient evidence supported a confession to penetration under that doctrine, remanding for harm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of the defense | Cornet argued medical care defense requires medical expertise. | State argued defense limited to medical professionals. | Defense available to non-medical actors |
| Confession and avoidance applicability | Defense cannot be used if it does not admit to all elements. | Medical-care defense should follow confession-and-avoidance like Good Samaritan defenses. | Doctrine applies to medical-care defense |
| Sufficiency of admission to penetration | Appellant did not expressly admit to penetration. | Defendant's statements could reasonably indicate penetration under the doctrine. | Sufficient admission shown; appellate denial reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutory interpretation framework guiding text-based meaning)
- Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (penetration defined by intrusion beyond external contact)
- Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (confession-and-avoidance limits in defense theory)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Good Samaritan defense as a form of necessity)
- Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (confession-and-avoidance applied to self-defense context)
- Martinez v. State, 775 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (discussion on limits of confession-and-avoidance in certain defenses)