Helm, Johnathan Lewis, PD-0796-15

Background

Appellant Jonathan Lewis Helm was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts involving a juvenile; jury acquitted on Count One and convicted on Counts Two and Three, receiving consecutive sentences (20 and 10 years).
The State originally realigned counts; the convictions on appeal correspond to Sexual Assault of a Child and Prohibited Sexual Conduct as tried.
At trial the complainant testified she had sex with Helm once in Oklahoma and repeatedly denied any sexual activity in Tarrant County (Texas); the State nonetheless introduced a prior statement/letter and impeachment testimony suggesting sexual activity in Fort Worth/Tarrant County.
The defense contends the only testimony establishing a Texas venue/sexual assault in Texas was admitted solely for impeachment and therefore cannot be used as substantive evidence of venue or guilt.
The Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the convictions, reasoning the defense failed to request a limiting instruction and that the complainant’s letter admitted without objection supported venue.
Helm filed a Petition for Discretionary Review arguing insufficiency of the evidence (venue and substantive proof) because impeachment-only evidence was improperly used as substantive proof; he asks for reversal and acquittal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Helm)	Held (Court of Appeals / procedural posture)
Whether evidence sufficiently proved sexual assault occurred in Texas (venue)	Evidence (including a letter and impeachment testimony) supports venue; no limiting instruction requested	Only complainant’s trial testimony placed sexual activity in Oklahoma; impeachment evidence cannot be used substantively to prove venue or elements	Court of Appeals affirmed conviction, finding no error where defense did not request limiting instruction and letter was admitted without objection
Whether prior inconsistent statements admitted for impeachment may be considered substantive evidence	Prior statements and impeachment had probative value; jury could consider them given circumstances	Prior inconsistent statements admitted only for impeachment lack probative value and cannot sustain conviction absent hearsay exception	Appellate court treated impeachment evidence as properly before jury (no reversal); PDR argues controlling law bars substantive use
Whether trial court abused discretion under Rule 403 by admitting impeachment to place otherwise inadmissible evidence before jury	Admission was reasonable under circumstances; State had legitimate impeachment purpose	Admission was a pretext to place inadmissible substantive evidence before jury, violating Rule 403 and precedent	Appellate court found no reversible abuse because limiting instruction issue and other evidence (letter) cured error
Whether the conviction should be reversed and judgment of acquittal entered under Jackson v. Virginia	State met the Jackson sufficiency standard when impeachment and other evidence considered	Removing impeachment-only evidence leaves legally insufficient evidence to convict; Jackson acquittal warranted	Appellant’s PDR asks Court of Criminal Appeals to review; Court of Appeals had denied sufficiency challenge

Key Cases Cited

Key v. State, 492 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (prior inconsistent statements admitted only for impeachment cannot be used as substantive proof)
Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (same principle limiting impeachment use)
Cherb v. State, 472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (longstanding rule that impeachment-only statements lack probative value as substantive evidence)
Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (impeachment evidence cannot substitute for substantive proof)
Shivers v. State, 374 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (same)
Hughes v. State, 4 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (trial court must guard against use of impeachment evidence primarily to place otherwise inadmissible evidence before jury under Rule 403)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)