in the Matter of T.V.T., 14-18-00807-CV

Appellant was 13 when he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 12‑year‑old and argued he could not be prosecuted because, as a child under 14, he lacked the requisite mens rea.
The trial court denied his motion to quash and motion to dismiss; appellant appealed those denials.
After this court’s original opinion, the Texas Supreme Court decided State v. R.R.S., holding that a juvenile’s legal inability to consent does not prevent conviction if the juvenile intentionally or knowingly committed the proscribed acts, and that a juvenile’s stipulation/admission is sufficient to support adjudication absent contrary record evidence.
The State filed supplemental briefing arguing R.R.S. foreclosed appellant’s claims; the court denied the State’s motion for rehearing and issued this supplemental opinion.
The court distinguished R.R.S. because (1) in this case appellant acknowledged on the record that consent was not a legal defense and (2) the record shows appellant was both a victim and an offender (two children under 13 engaged in sexual conduct), which can constitute “contrary record evidence.”
The court concluded R.R.S. did not control the outcome here and denied the relief requested in the State’s rehearing motion.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile’s legal inability to consent negates the mens rea element for aggravated sexual assault	A child under 14 cannot form requisite mens rea and thus cannot be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault	Under State v. R.R.S., inability to consent does not bar conviction if the juvenile intentionally/knowingly committed the acts; admission/stipulation supports adjudication absent contrary record evidence	Court distinguished R.R.S.; consent can be informative on mens rea and the record here contains contrary evidence (appellant both victim and offender), so R.R.S. does not resolve the claim in the State’s favor
Whether R.R.S. mandates that a juvenile’s plea/admission alone supports adjudication in this case	Appellant: R.R.S. is distinguishable because facts show he was both victim and offender and he raised consent-related mens rea arguments before pleading	State: R.R.S. overrules appellant’s issues and his plea/admission should suffice to support adjudication	Court: R.R.S. permits consideration of contrary record evidence; because such evidence exists here, R.R.S. does not control and the State’s rehearing request is denied

State v. R.R.S., 597 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2020) (juvenile’s inability to consent does not preclude conviction if acts were intentional/knowing; a juvenile’s stipulation/admission is sufficient absent contrary record evidence)