Lee v. State
537 S.W.3d 924
Tex. Crim. App.2017Background
- Appellant (stepfather) was tried and convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under Tex. Penal Code § 21.02 and sentenced to life.
- Alleged sexual assaults occurred twice: once in New Jersey and once in Texas, separated by at least 30 days.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Texas jurisdiction satisfied because one predicate act occurred in Taylor County, Texas.
- Appellant argued the out-of-state act could not count because § 21.02(c) requires each "act of sexual abuse" to be a violation of Texas law.
- The State argued continuous sexual abuse is a single offense and territorial jurisdiction exists if any element occurred in Texas.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the evidence was insufficient for the continuous-abuse conviction because only one Texas violation was proven; reformed the judgment to aggravated sexual assault and remanded for punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out-of-state sexual assault can serve as one of the "two or more acts of sexual abuse" under Tex. Penal Code § 21.02 | Continuous sexual abuse is a single offense; an element (aggravated sexual assault) need not occur entirely in Texas so territorial jurisdiction is satisfied if any element occurred in Texas | § 21.02(c) defines "act of sexual abuse" as an act that "is a violation" of Texas law; an act committed wholly outside Texas is not a Texas violation and cannot be a predicate | Held: No — each predicate must be a violation of Texas law; out-of-state act cannot count |
| Whether territorial-jurisdiction principles from Rodriguez allow treating out-of-state predicate offenses as Texas violations for § 21.02 purposes | Rodriguez permits jurisdiction where any conduct element occurs in Texas even if related conduct occurs outside Texas | § 21.02(c)’s phrasing ("is a violation") requires the predicate offense itself to violate Texas law at the time committed; Rodriguez does not allow treating out-of-state acts as Texas violations | Held: Rodriguez establishes jurisdiction but does not change that an "act of sexual abuse" must itself be a Texas violation; Rodriguez does not make out-of-state acts into Texas violations |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 21.02 | One act occurred in Texas and the jury convicted under continuous-abuse statute | Only one violation of Texas law was proven (the Texas assault); the New Jersey act cannot be counted | Held: Insufficient evidence for continuous sexual abuse; conviction must be reformed to lesser-included aggravated sexual assault |
| Appropriate remedy when an element of the charged offense is not proven but jury necessarily found a lesser offense | N/A | N/A | Held: Reform judgment to lesser-included offense (aggravated sexual assault) and remand for new punishment hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Rodriguez v. State, 146 S.W.3d 674 (territorial jurisdiction exists if a conduct element occurs in Texas)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (remedy when evidence insufficient for charged offense but supports lesser-included conviction)
- Soliz v. State, 353 S.W.3d 850 (aggravated sexual assault is a lesser-included offense of continuous sexual abuse)
- Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805 (application of Jackson sufficiency standard in Texas)