Lawrence, Christopher
PD-1068-15
| Tex. App. | Nov 13, 2015Background
- Christopher Lawrence was tried for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under six; jury convicted and imposed concurrent terms of 30 and 70 years.
- At trial the State introduced images, videos, and internet-search records of child pornography recovered from computers owned by Lawrence.
- Lawrence objected pretrial (motion in limine) and on Rule 403 grounds at trial but did not expressly object under Rule 404(b) when the forensic witness described the files; Lawrence later admitted downloading some files.
- Lawrence’s defense repeatedly argued any touching was accidental, occurred while he was asleep, or was caused by the child or others; he also suggested the child was coached.
- The trial court admitted the child-pornography evidence; on appeal Lawrence argued the admission was improper character-propensity evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) and that the evidence was legally insufficient. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawrence) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child‑pornography evidence | Evidence of images/searches was improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b); not covered by any 404(b) exception | Evidence was relevant to intent/motive and to rebut defenses (accident, asleep, mistake); also possibly admissible under art. 38.37 | Admission did not constitute reversible abuse of discretion; evidence admissible to show intent and to rebut defensive theories |
| Preservation of 404(b) complaint | Lawrence contends trial rulings and motion in limine preserved issue | Record shows objections at trial were limited to Rule 403 and no renewed Rule 404(b) objection during witness testimony; defendant later admitted some downloads | Court found preservation weak but resolved issue on merits under Rule 404(b); no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence (implicit raised) | Lawrence argued facts were insufficient and alleged overcharging; claimed counsel ineffective on appeal | State notes jury crediting of testimony and corroborating forensic evidence; Jackson sufficiency standard applies | Court did not reach a reversal on sufficiency; conviction affirmed (appellate review defers to jury credibility findings) |
| Article 38.37 procedures | Lawrence noted State did not give statutory 30‑day notice or hold a pre‑trial article 38.37 hearing | Court observed record lacks clear article 38.37 notice/hearing but limited analysis to Rule 404(b) | Court limited its analysis to Rule 404(b) and upheld admission under that rule despite procedural gaps on article 38.37 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard: review evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissible when relevant apart from propensity)
- Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same‑transaction/contextual evidence may be admitted when offenses intermingle)
- Sarabia v. State, 227 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (possession/downloads of child pornography may be probative of intent to arouse/gratify sexual desire)
- Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (framework for admissibility of extraneous‑offense evidence)