Jason B. Jackson v. State
01-14-00614-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 18, 2015Background
- Jason B. Jackson was charged with aggravated sexual assault (anal intercourse by force) of adult David Coronado (June 20, 2012); an enhancement alleged a 2006 controlled-substance conviction.
- Jackson waived a jury and submitted to a bench trial; the trial court found him guilty, found the enhancement true, and sentenced him to 17 years; Jackson timely filed a notice of appeal.
- The complainant (Coronado) testified he met Jackson at a gay bar, went to Jackson’s home, and that Jackson forced anal and oral sex; he later sought assistance and was taken to a hospital.
- SANE exam recorded two fresh tears to Coronado’s anus and multiple swabs; laboratory testing identified semen and a DNA profile the outsourced lab matched to Jackson.
- Investigators located Jackson as the homeowner of the crime scene, obtained a photo lineup identification by Coronado, and officers testified Coronado was shaken and emotional when found.
- Defense argued the encounter was consensual, highlighted inconsistencies in Coronado’s statements (e.g., new claim about being drugged), physical findings consistent with consensual sex, and suggested Coronado had an immigration-related motive (U-Visa) to fabricate; appellant’s brief challenges sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s credibility finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove nonconsent beyond a reasonable doubt | State: Coronado’s testimony, corroborated by SANE findings, DNA match, victim’s distressed condition, and photo ID prove forcible sexual assault | Jackson: The evidence is consistent with consensual sex; Coronado’s credibility is undermined by inconsistencies, lack of visible injuries, timing/context (met at bar), and possible immigration motive | Trial court found Jackson guilty; on appeal Jackson argues the trial court abused its discretion because evidence was insufficient (appellate decision not provided in brief) |
Key Cases Cited
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses a jury instruction definition of "reasonable doubt")
- Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (limits use of Geesa jury-definition instruction)
- Reyes v. State, 938 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (addresses jury instructions on reasonable doubt)
- O'Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (notes better practice is to omit a definition of reasonable doubt to the jury)