Michael Allen Stites v. State
11-16-00266-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Michael Allen Stites was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 25 years’ confinement; appeal from Taylor County, Texas.
- Indictment alleged repeated acts (over a period >30 days between Jan. 1, 2008 and Mar. 1, 2013) including aggravated sexual assault (oral contact) of L.D. and B.S., and indecency by contact with L.D.
- Victim L.D. (then 14 at trial) gave detailed testimony about multiple incidents in Texas, including forced oral sex and viewing of a pornographic video; she could not specify dates or number of incidents.
- B.S. initially reported abuse and exhibited sexualized behavior, but recanted at trial; therapist and neighbor corroborated disclosures and behavioral indicators.
- Defense attacked credibility; appellant denied any sexual conduct; prosecution presented CPS finding of “reason to believe” and a police detective testified Appellant admitted showing pornographic videos on his phone.
- Trial court denied Appellant’s requested jury instructions on lesser included offenses; Appellant appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence and entitlement to lesser-offense instructions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Stites' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for continuous sexual abuse of a child | L.D.’s detailed Texas testimony, corroborating witnesses, CPS finding and other evidence suffice for a rational juror to convict | Inconsistencies in L.D.’s testimony and unsubstantiated prior outcry (Arizona) render evidence insufficient | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson standard) |
| Entitlement to jury instruction on aggravated sexual assault of a child (lesser-included) | The charged offense includes the lesser offense, but record lacks evidence that Appellant committed only the lesser offense—Appellant denied wrongdoing | Requested lesser instruction warranted by some evidence elicited at trial | Affirmed denial: first prong met (lesser included), but second prong fails because defendant simply denied commission of any offense, so no some-evidence for only the lesser offense |
| Entitlement to jury instruction on indecency with a child by contact (lesser-included) | Same as above: offense is a lesser included but no record evidence showing guilt only of lesser offense | Requested inclusion based on testimony about touching | Affirmed denial for same reason—defendant’s complete denial defeats the required some-evidence showing he was guilty only of lesser offense |
| Applicability of out-of-state acts to continuous sexual abuse period | Prosecutor limited proof to Texas acts; out-of-state acts cannot count toward Texas continuous-abuse statute | Appellant urged discounting reliance on prior (Arizona) allegations | Court excluded Arizona acts from analysis (citing precedent) and relied on Texas incidents only |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury credibility findings in sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Jackson standard application)
- Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (a child victim’s testimony alone can support sexual-assault conviction)
- Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (explaining Aguilar/Rousseau two-step lesser-included-offense test)
- Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (lesser-included instruction standard)
- Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (original lesser-included rule articulation)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (comparison of statutory elements and some-evidence requirement)
- Soliz v. State, 353 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (continuous sexual abuse includes certain listed offenses as lesser-included offenses)