Fleming v. State
341 S.W.3d 415
Tex. Crim. App.2011Background
- Fleming was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under Tex. Penal Code § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii), (2)(B).
- Before trial, Fleming moved to quash the indictment on due process and due course of law grounds, arguing lack of mens rea and no mistake-of-fact defense.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held the statute constitutional under the Due Process Clause and did not address due course of law.
- This Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded to reconsider Fleming’s due course of law challenge to Section 22.021 with a scope analysis comparing Texas due course of law to the federal counterpart.
- The remand requires the court of appeals to determine whether Texas’s due course of law provides greater, lesser, or the same protections as the federal Due Process Clause in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22.021 violates due process by lacking mens rea or mistake defense | Fleming contends no mens rea and no mistake defense render statute unconstitutional. | State contends statute is constitutional under due process. | Remanded for due course of law scope analysis; no final due process ruling. |
| Whether Texas due course of law provides greater protections than the federal due process | Fleming asserts Texas due course of law offers safeguards beyond federal standards. | State maintains Texas due course of law aligns with federal due process. | Remanded to decide scope and parity of protections between Texas due course of law and federal due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (due course of law and due process interplay)
- Than v. University of Texas Medical School, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995) (substantive and procedural due process considerations)
- Ex parte Quintanilla, 207 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 1947) (historical overview of due process protections)
- Hulit v. State, 982 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (due process and substantive protections discussion)
- McCormick, P.J., dissent in State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (comments on federalization concerns and independent state analysis)