Background

• Lovings was convicted of sexual assault in two cases (causes 1249643 and 1249644) after a jury found the lesser included offense of sexual assault, with ten years’ confinement in each case served concurrently.
• Lovings challenged (1) trial court failure to include statutory definitions of “without consent” in the jury charge and (2) sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
• The complainant testified Lovings beat and raped her after overpowering her with threats, leading to injuries and police investigation.
• A video recorded Lovings’s statements; the complainant identified Lovings in a lineup; medical and forensic witnesses described injuries and the lack of trauma in some exams.
• The trial court’s charge stated the offense was committed “without consent” but did not define that term; the defense did not object to the omission.
• The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding no egregious harm occurred from the charge omission and the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdicts.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Rohlfing v. State, 612 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (harmless error when element omitted but defined in charge)
• Nejnaoui v. State, 44 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (definition not necessary when commonly understood)
• Olveda v. State, 650 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (assessing jury charge error for missing statutory definitions)
• Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (preservation vs. egregious harm standard)
• Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (establishes harm analysis framework for unpreserved errors)
• Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (recites standard for reviewing sufficiency with deference to jury)
• Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (uncorroborated testimony can support conviction in sexual assault cases)
• Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (unpreserved error standard and credibility assessment)