Jeannie Coutta v. State
385 S.W.3d 641
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Owners operated Naked Harem, an adult club where private dances and sex acts occurred; dancers were independent contractors sharing proceeds with the club; owners monitored activities with cameras and recordings; evidence included recordings of private-room sex and underage dancers; witnesses testified the owners controlled policy and profits; condoms and discarded evidence indicated prostitution and organized-criminal activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy appeal due process | Coutta argues delay violated due process | State explains delay due to court reporter issues | Delay not a due-process violation; no substantial prejudice shown. |
| Accomplice-witness corroboration and instruction | Non-accomplice evidence insufficient to corroborate accomplice-witnesses; instruction required | Accomplice-witness instructions warranted given evidence | Non-accomplice evidence sufficient; any error harmless; no reversible error. |
| Sufficiency of corroborating evidence for Counts II–IV | Corroboration insufficient to connect Appellant to offenses | Evidence showed ownership and operation of prostitution enterprise | Non-accomplice evidence sufficient; jurors could connect Appellant to the offenses. |
| Admission of Cisneros video evidence | Video necessary to rebut defense theory | Video improperly admitted or prejudicial | Court did not abuse discretion; opening-the-door doctrine supported admission. |
| Exclusion of testimony (Gibson) | Gibson’s testimony would explain condom machine and notice | No preserved error; relevance unproven | Issue not preserved; exclusion upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (two-part mens rea/continuing criminal activity requirement)
- Taylor v. State, 548 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (prostitution enterprise requires two or more participants)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (accomplice-witness rule; conditional admission when status unclear)
- Moulton v. State, 508 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974) (transactional immunity does not automatically render witness an accomplice)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (egregious-harm standard for accomplice-witness instruction harmless unless substantial corroboration lacking)