Daniel Lee Reed v. State
12-15-00291-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Appellant Daniel Lee Reed was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his four-year-old granddaughter, C.C.; jury assessed life imprisonment.
- Prosecution evidence: C.C. reported penetration by Reed to her foster parent, counselor, and a forensic interviewer; she described the act and used hand motions indicating penetration.
- Forensic evidence: sperm cells on C.C.’s anal and vaginal swabs matched Reed’s DNA; analyst testified transfer from an inserted tissue was unlikely.
- Expert testimony: a psychologist and counselor opined C.C.’s behavior and symptoms were consistent with sexual abuse; forensic interviewer found C.C. able to identify an abuser.
- Reed’s account: said he awoke from a sexual dream with an unclothed C.C. on top of him, pushed her away, cleaned her with a towel, could not definitively say whether penetration occurred, and denied intentional touching.
- Trial court denied Reed’s directed verdict motion and refused a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of indecency with a child by contact; Reed appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence (penetration) | Evidence (victim statements, behavior, expert opinion, and DNA matching sperm on swabs) proves penetration beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial evidence insufficient to prove penetration; alternative explanations (transfer, accidental contact) plausible | Affirmed: Evidence legally sufficient for penetration; conviction upheld |
| Denial of directed verdict | Properly denied because sufficient evidence supported submission to jury | Motion should have been granted for lack of proof of penetration | Affirmed: Denial proper because circumstantial and direct evidence allowed reasonable jury verdict |
| Request for lesser-included offense (indecency by contact) | N/A (State opposed instruction) | Entitled to instruction because evidence could support contact only (sleeping, possible accidental contact, victim’s sexualized behavior) | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; no some-evidence showing defendant guilty only of the lesser offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (directed verdict treated as sufficiency challenge)
- Cornet v. State, 359 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (penetration may be more intrusive than outer contact)
- Luna v. State, 515 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (slight penetration sufficient; circumstantial evidence may prove penetration)
- Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (requirements for submitting lesser-included offense)
- Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (review lesser-included request against all evidence)
- Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard of review for lesser-included instruction denial)
- Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (lesser-included must be a valid rational alternative)
- Cahvarriga v. State, 156 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004) (defendant’s denial insufficient to raise lesser-included issue)
- Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (recognizing indecency with a child as a lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault)