Earnie Lee Randell v. State
11-16-00014-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Earnie Lee Randell was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of young children and sentenced to 25 years' confinement.
- Victims (pseudonyms PSEUPRR and C.R.) are grandchildren; abuse of PSEUPRR began circa 2005–2012, C.R. from 2011–2013; many incidents testified to, with PSEUPRR describing frequent assaults after a 2006 move.
- Indictment charged continuous sexual abuse under Tex. Penal Code § 21.02, which became effective September 1, 2007; acts before that date cannot support a conviction under § 21.02.
- The jury charge included an abstract instruction allowing the State to prove the offense "at any time prior to the presentment of the indictment," which defense contends permitted consideration of pre-September 1, 2007 acts.
- Trial court’s charge also contained explicit application paragraphs limiting the charged time frame to "on or about September 1, 2007 through August 26, 2015," and the State emphasized that date range in closing.
- The court of appeals considered whether the erroneous abstract language egregiously harmed Randell given the other charge language, closing argument, and substantial evidence of post-September 1, 2007 abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury charge error (abstract language permitting proof "at any time prior to presentment") was erroneous when it could include acts before §21.02 effective date | State: charge as a whole authorized conviction only within the specified application period | Randell: the abstract instruction broadened the chronological perimeter to include pre-September 1, 2007 acts, so charge was erroneous | Court: the abstract instruction was erroneous (it could permit a broader chronological perimeter) |
| Whether the unobjected-to charge error caused egregious harm requiring reversal | Randell: error deprived him of fair trial by allowing conviction on pre-enabling conduct | State: other charge language and closing argument limited jurors to proper date range; overwhelming evidence of post-enabling acts | Court: no egregious harm; error mitigated by correct temporal instructions, State’s closing, and overwhelming evidence of post-9/1/2007 abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (two-pronged jury-charge error review; harm standard for preserved vs. unpreserved error)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (egregious-harm requires actual harm that affects the basis of the case or defensive theories)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (clarifies harms required when defendant preserves charge error)
- Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (neither party bears the burden to prove harm from jury-charge error)
- Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial judge’s duty to instruct jury on applicable law under art. 36.14, even sua sponte)
- Gomez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (similar charge error; pre-enabling acts cannot support §21.02 conviction; surrounding correct instructions can mitigate harm)
- Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (holding comparable abstract temporal instruction erroneous but mitigated where correct temporal language framed charge)
- Martin v. State, 335 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (addressing improper broad chronological perimeter in charge and harm analysis)