Febus v. State
542 S.W.3d 568
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2018Background
- Appellant (Febus) was a registered sex offender who moved within the La Hacienda Apartments complex in Houston and was required to register a change of address in person.
- At registration, forms and a temporary DPS paper license recorded the address as "6110 Glenmont, Apt. 45" (incorrect); Appellant signed the registration documents.
- A compliance check at 6110 Glenmont found no Febus; officers did not check 6100 Glenmont. A warrant issued and Febus was prosecuted for failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements.
- At trial the registration officer testified Febus gave the 6110 address; Febus testified he told authorities the correct 6100 address and that any failure was due to clerical or agency error.
- The jury convicted Febus; punishment included enhancements and a 35-year sentence. The court of appeals affirmed under Robinson v. State; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Febus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was evidence adequate to show Febus failed to comply with registration? | Testimony and signed forms showed Febus gave the incorrect address; jury could disbelieve contrary testimony. | Febus argued he intended to and did register correctly; any error was clerical or due to the registering authority. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could find Febus provided the wrong address. |
| Mens rea: Must the State prove intent/knowledge for the failure-to-register element? | Under Robinson, culpable mental state is required only as to the duty-to-register (circumstance), not the failure-to-comply; State need not prove additional mens rea for the failing act. | Febus argued failure was negligent/ involuntary and that Robinson was wrongly decided; he urged mens rea apply to failure-to-register. | Held: Robinson controls; State need not prove an additional culpable mental state for the failure-to-comply element, though involuntary acts (e.g., rebuffed attempts) may defeat liability. |
| Voluntariness/Involuntary act defense: Could Febus avoid liability by showing failure was involuntary or due to agency error? | The Court treated involuntariness as a separate defense; if failure was involuntary (e.g., authorities rebuffed registration), defendant may not be criminally liable. | Febus asserted his failure was involuntary/caused by police or clerical error. | Held: Court incorporated Robinson concurrence reasoning that a truly involuntary failure (rebuffed attempts) can preclude criminal liability; but here the jury reasonably rejected Febus's involuntariness claim. |
| Stare decisis: Should Robinson be overruled? | The majority declined to overrule Robinson; it is neither poorly reasoned nor unworkable and has not adversely affected sufficiency outcomes here. | Dissent urged overruling Robinson and requiring culpable mental state for failure-to-register. | Held: Robinson retained; no overruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for evidence)
- Crabtree v. State, 389 S.W.3d 820 (Texas Crim. App.) (discussing sufficiency review)
- Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (held culpable mental state applies to duty-to-register but not to failure-to-comply)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstance-of-conduct analysis for mens rea)
- Huffman v. State, 267 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying mens rea to circumstances such as knowledge of involvement in an accident)
- Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treating duty-to-register as the circumstances triggering the statute)