Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2333
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellant Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa was convicted of one count of continuous sexual abuse, two counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of indecency with a child.
- He challenged (a) the continuous sexual abuse statute as unconstitutional for jury-unanimity concerns, (b) admission of the child’s entire interview under Rule 107 and Rule 403, and (c) double jeopardy to bar some convictions.
- The majority overruled preservation arguments for facial and as-applied challenges to the statute, held the interview admissible under Rule 107 with balancing under Rule 403, and vacated multiple convictions under double jeopardy analysis.
- The court affirmed the continuous sexual abuse conviction (count one) and reversed counts two through five.
- Daup hoff? concur/dissent: Justice Dauphinot concurred in part and dissented to the facial-unconstitutionality analysis.
- The final disposition: count one affirmed; counts two–five vacated; judgment entered consistent with Rule 43.2(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality preservation | Ibenyenwa contends 21.02 is facially/as applied unconstitutional and unpreserved. | State argues preservation rules bar facial/as-applied challenges on appeal. | Challenges not preserved; overruled. |
| Admission of the child’s entire interview under Rule 107/403 | Ibenyenwa argues admission was improper and prejudicial. | State argues interview was necessary to explain defense and not unfairly prejudicial. | Court holds admission proper under Rule 107 and not abusive under Rule 403. |
| Double jeopardy impact of vacating counts | Ibenyenwa argues no reversible error beyond count one. | State concedes potential reversal of related counts if count one is affirmed. | Counts two through five vacated; count one affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Korenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (facial challenges to statutes may be preserved or raised on appeal)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (preservation required for facial challenges)
- Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (preservation rules and facial challenges discussed)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (facial-challenge reception and appellate stance)
- Lawrence v. State, 41 S.W.3d 349 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2001) (reversed on certain constitutional grounds; later overruled by U.S. Supreme Court decision)
- Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749 (Supreme Court 1995) (fundamental constitutional principles; law void if repugnant to Constitution)
- Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (constitutional challenges and related procedural topics)
- Ex parte Yarbrough (The Ku Klux Klan Cases), 110 U.S. 651 (U.S. Supreme Court 1884) (unconstitutionality and due process considerations in criminal statutes)