Edward Lee Jaycox v. State
13-13-00639-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 3, 2015Background
- Edward Lee Jaycox was indicted for aggravated sexual assault with a habitual-offender enhancement; a jury convicted and assessed life imprisonment.
- Complainant M.S., age 19, testified she accepted a ride from Jaycox, was taken to his trailer, restrained, threatened, and sexually assaulted (oral, digital, and vaginal penetration), suffering bruises and genital injuries.
- M.S. reported the assault immediately, called police, and was examined by a certified SANE nurse who documented bruises, abrasions, and genital trauma.
- Jaycox admitted intercourse to an investigating officer but claimed consent. Photographs of Jaycox’s scratches were admitted.
- On appeal Jaycox raised three evidentiary issues: (1) objection to the prosecutor and witnesses referring to M.S. as the "victim," (2) hearsay admission of the detective’s testimony recounting M.S.’s statements, and (3) admissibility/qualification of the SANE nurse’s opinion that injuries were consistent with sexual assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of term "victim" | State used the term when questioning witnesses; no prejudice | Jaycox argued the word shifts burden and is improper | Court held use of "victim" by prosecutor/witnesses was not reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Hearsay — detective repeating M.S.’s statements | State offered detective’s recounting; conceded outcry statute inapplicable | Jaycox argued inadmissible hearsay and improper outcry witness under art. 38.072 | Court found admission was error but harmless because M.S. and the SANE nurse gave similar, unobjected testimony |
| Expert qualification — SANE nurse opinion on consistency with assault | Nurse testified to injuries and stated findings consistent with sexual assault | Jaycox argued nurse lacked sufficient qualifications to opine whether injuries indicated nonconsent | Court held SANE nurse’s training, certification, and experience sufficed; opinion admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (explains article 38.072 outcry evidence framework)
- Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (erroneous admission harmless if similar evidence admitted without objection)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for harm analysis of evidentiary error)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of "substantial and injurious" effect for reversible error)
- Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for reviewing admissibility of expert testimony)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (two-step inquiry on expert qualifications and fit)
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court discretion in admitting expert testimony)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court rulings on experts)
- Cueva v. State, 339 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (use of term "victim" is relatively mild; not reversible error)
- Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (medical and nursing personnel may be qualified to opine in sexual-assault cases)