488 S.W.3d 350
Tex. App.2016Background
- Brandon Eugene Ford was indicted for sexual assault of a child under Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2)(C) with nine enhancement allegations for prior felonies.
- Ford moved to quash the indictment, arguing the relevant statutory provision was unconstitutional for lacking a mens rea element as to the victim’s age and for not recognizing a mistake-of-fact defense.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash after a hearing.
- Pursuant to a plea bargain, Ford pleaded guilty and true to one enhancement, received a 35-year sentence, and obtained permission to appeal the denial of the motion to quash.
- The appeal challenges § 22.011(a)(2)(C) under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Texas Constitution, arguing the statute requires no proof the defendant knew the victim was under 17 and precludes an affirmative mistake-of-fact defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 22.011(a)(2)(C) requires mens rea as to victim age | Ford: statute unconstitutional for lacking a culpable mental state regarding age | State: trial record shows objection preserved; statute valid without mens rea as to age | Court: statute constitutional; no mens rea required as to victim age |
| Whether mistake-of-fact as to victim age is a cognizable defense | Ford: statute unconstitutional for denying a mistake-of-fact defense | State: no mens rea to negate, so no mistake-of-fact defense is required | Court: no mistake-of-fact defense exists because statute imposes strict liability for age element |
| Whether issues were preserved for appeal | Ford: contends trial court and State understood his motion as challenging § 22.011 | State: does not contest shared understanding; record shows judge ruled on objection | Court: objection was sufficiently apparent from context; issue preserved |
| Whether precedent (Fleming) should be revisited | Ford: invites reconsideration of Fleming holding on similar statutes | State: relies on Fleming and other precedents upholding statutes | Court: declines to revisit Fleming; applies its reasoning to § 22.011 |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (upholding lack of mens rea and rejecting mistake-of-fact defense for age in sexual-assault statute)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (State not required to prove defendant knew victim was under seventeen)
- Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (appellate issue must comport with trial objection to preserve error)
- Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (constitutional errors may be forfeited if not properly objected to at trial)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (when an objection is obvious from record statements or actions, it may preserve error)
- Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (shared understanding on the record can preserve an issue for appeal)