675 S.W.3d 303
Tex.2023Background
- T.V.T., age 13, was charged under Tex. Penal Code §22.021(a)(1)(B)(ii), (2)(B) for intentionally causing the complainant (age 12) to receive oral penetration by his sexual organ.
- T.V.T. moved to quash, for summary judgment, and filed habeas relief arguing children under 14 lack legal capacity to consent and thus cannot be guilty; the trial court denied relief.
- He stipulated to the statutory allegations, pleaded “true,” and received juvenile probation with required sex-offender treatment; he reserved appellate rights on pre-plea motions.
- The court of appeals reversed and dismissed, relying on In re B.W. (children under 14 lack capacity to consent in prostitution context) and concluding consent (or incapacity) precluded the mens rea for aggravated sexual assault.
- After this Court decided State v. R.R.S. (juveniles under 14 can form the mens rea for aggravated sexual assault), the Supreme Court granted review; it found the case not moot (collateral consequences remain) and reversed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (T.V.T.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim consent may inform the mens rea (intent/knowledge) for §22.021 when both parties are under 14 and close in age | Consent is irrelevant; statute criminalizes the conduct when victim <14 regardless of consent | A child under 14 lacks legal capacity to consent, so consent (or incapacity) negates the required mens rea | Consent cannot be imported into the mens rea analysis; statute forbids consent defenses and covers conduct between children under 14 |
| Mootness: whether the appeal is moot after probation ended | Case is not moot because collateral consequences (e.g., sealing, registration) remain | Probation end moots the controversy | Not moot; collateral consequences sustain a live controversy |
| Whether a proximity-in-age exception or absurdity doctrine saves T.V.T. from prosecution | No proximity exception; Legislature addressed age closeness by limiting disposition, not creating a mens rea exception | Applying §22.021 to close-in-age, consensual conduct is absurd and leads to prosecutorial confusion | Absurdity doctrine inapplicable; no judicial proximity-in-age exception; legislature’s choices control |
| Whether Court should decide constitutional challenges raised by T.V.T. | N/A (State sought review of statutory interpretation) | §22.021 is unconstitutional as applied | Court declined to resolve constitutional claims and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. R.R.S., 597 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2020) (juveniles under 14 can have the requisite intent for aggravated sexual assault)
- In re B.W., 313 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. 2010) (children under 14 lack legal capacity to consent for prostitution statute)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consent is a defensive theory that can place intent at issue—cases where consent is available)
- Rubio v. State, 607 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (similar holding regarding consent in offenses where consent is a defense)
- Combs v. Health Care Servs. Corp., 401 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2013) (standard for applying the absurdity doctrine)
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness and prohibition on advisory opinions)
- Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. 1972) (collateral consequences can preserve appellate review)