Morgan v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2881
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Morgan was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person under Texas Penal Code §22.021; the victim TH had mental/physical disabilities and was known to Morgan as a friend.
- TH testified Morgan lured him to a trailer, undressed him, and assaulted him; Morgan allegedly threatened violence if TH disclosed the act.
- A sexual assault nurse examiner reported anal injuries consistent with assault; DNA on TH’s penile swab matched Morgan’s DNA in a deletion-probability mixture.
- The jury found Morgan guilty and sentenced him to 75 years’ imprisonment; Morgan appeals alleging insufficient evidence and improper trial court comments on the weight of the evidence.
- Morgan disputed whether TH was legally a “disabled individual” under §22.04(c)(3) and whether the trial court’s incidental competency instruction affected the jury’s evaluation of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency to prove TH is a disabled individual | Morgan argues TH’s cognitive/physical disability isn’t proven | Morgan contends evidence shows TH wasn’t disabled | Sufficient evidence supports TH as disabled under the statutory definition |
| Trail court comment violated Article 38.05 or affected the jury | Morgan argues court-comment on credibility was improper | State argues instruction was harmless or non-prejudicial | No reversible error; comment not fundamental; if error, not egregious harm |
| Jury charge error under Almanza standard | Morgan asserts error affected the outcome | State contends no egregious harm existed | Even if error, no egregious harm; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abolished factual sufficiency; legal sufficiency standard governs review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (federal standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge defines elements)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (appropriately defines hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Mantooth v. State, 269 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008) (addresses inclusion of essential elements and variances in hypothetically correct charge)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (juror weighing of evidence and credibility responsibilities)
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discusses fundamental error and presumption of innocence regarding judge’s comments)
- Reyna v. State, 797 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1990) (competency instruction for child witness and preservation of error)
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (comment did not constitute reversible error; preservation)