Damion Dewayne Williams v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9383
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Damion Dewayne Williams was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his 12‑year‑old half‑sister, sentenced to 18 years.
- Indictment contained two paragraphs alleging penetration of (A) the child’s sexual organ and (B) the child’s anus; the paragraphs lacked a coordinating conjunction.
- Trial evidence showed the complainant and a nurse both reported that Williams penetrated both orifices; a witness also observed part of the conduct. A co‑defendant (Sam) was implicated as well.
- The jury charge tracked the indictment, listing both paragraphs but failing to instruct unanimity as to which penetration (unit of prosecution) supported a guilty verdict.
- Defense argued for reversal on several grounds; the appellate court found charge/unanimity error dispositive and reversed and remanded for a new trial, declining to address other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury charge permitted a non‑unanimous verdict by failing to require jurors to agree on which penetration (vaginal or anal) constituted the offense | Williams: charge allowed jurors to convict without unanimous agreement on the unit of prosecution (vaginal vs. anal penetration) | State: indictment listed alternate means; following Jourdan, alternate means of a single penetration do not necessarily require unanimity | Court: Error — where evidence showed two separate penetrations/orifices, the charge failed to require unanimity; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial due to egregious harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Jourdan v. State, 428 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (analyzes when alternate means implicate unanimity; single penetration facts distinguished)
- Pizzo v. State, 235 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Legislature’s separate listing of body areas can create discrete units of prosecution)
- Francis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (disjunctive submission of separate offenses can permit non‑unanimous verdicts and is error)
- Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (identifies ways non‑unanimity may arise when multiple incidents or results are presented)
- Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (alternate theories may be submitted disjunctively; unanimity analysis depends on whether units of prosecution differ)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (under state law, jury unanimity is required in criminal cases)