George Brandon Chambers v. State
502 S.W.3d 891
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- George Brandon Chambers was convicted by a jury in McLennan County of indecency by contact with a six‑year‑old girl and sentenced to 30 years (with a separate unchallenged aggravated sexual assault conviction and 60‑year enhancement).
- The indictment alleged Chambers touched the child’s “breasts” with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire under Tex. Penal Code § 21.11.
- Forensic interviewer testified the child said she was touched on her “boobs” and gestured to indicate contact with her chest.
- Chambers argued the statute’s reference to “breast” requires a developed, milk‑producing organ (relying on Nelson v. State’s definition) and thus a prepubescent child has no “breasts,” so the evidence is insufficient.
- The court considered statutory construction principles and the statute’s protective object for children in resolving whether undeveloped chest anatomy of a child falls within § 21.11’s definition of “breast.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether touching an undeveloped child’s chest can constitute "breast" under Tex. Penal Code § 21.11 | Chambers: statute’s term “breast” requires developed, milk‑producing organ; a six‑year‑old has no breasts, so element not met | State: statute criminalizes touching the chest/breasts of any child under 17 when done with sexual intent; no development requirement | Court: statute’s plain language covers touching a child’s breasts regardless of development; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Liverman v. State, 470 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and when statutory‑construction questions are reviewed de novo)
- Nelson v. State, 505 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (discussed prior usage of the term “breasts” in a different factual context)
- Eubanks v. State, 326 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (statute does not require developed breasts)
- Turner v. State, 721 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) (similar holding that undeveloped anatomy can be covered)
- Uribe v. State, 7 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (statutory objective to protect children informs construction)
- Hernandez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (affirming protective reading of indecency statutes)
- Zubia v. State, 998 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (cited for statutory objectives and interpretive principles)