Jerry Wayne Keithley v. State
10-16-00331-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Appellant Jerry Wayne Keithley was indicted and convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child based on multiple incidents (indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault) over a five-year period involving his daughter, B.K.
- Trial by jury resulted in a guilty verdict and a life sentence; appeal followed challenging the jury charge.
- The jury charge included full statutory (abstract) definitions of the culpable mental states "intentionally" and "knowingly."
- In the application paragraphs, the court limited "knowingly" to the aggravated-sexual-assault allegation and instructed the indecency allegations using intent-to-arouse/gratify language consistent with the statute.
- Keithley did not object to the charge at trial; on appeal he argued the abstract definitions improperly expanded culpable mental states for conduct-oriented offenses and caused egregious harm.
- The State conceded error in the abstract portion but argued any error was not egregiously harmful; the court reviewed harm under Almanza and Olivas factors and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury charge erroneously expanded culpable mental states by giving full abstract definitions of "intentionally" and "knowingly" for conduct-oriented offenses | Keithley: Abstract definitions improperly broadened the mental-state elements and should have limited "knowingly" to aggravated sexual assault only | State: Concedes abstract error but argues application paragraphs correctly limited culpable mental states and there was no egregious harm | Court: Error conceded but not egregiously harmful; application paragraphs limited the definitions and prevented reversible error |
| Whether appellant preserved error and, if not, whether the error caused egregious harm requiring reversal | Keithley: Though he failed to object, the charge error produced egregious harm to his substantial rights | State: No egregious harm given proper application language, sufficient evidence, and closing arguments | Court: No egregious harm under Almanza/Olivas factors; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury-charge error)
- Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors to consider when assessing egregious harm)
- Reed v. State, 421 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—Waco 2013) (application paragraphs can limit abstract definitions and mitigate harm)
- Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Almanza analysis is fact-specific)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (superfluous abstract language alone does not warrant reversal)