Sonny Ray Byrne v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9084
Tex. App.2011Background
- Byrne charged with sexual assault of a child under Tex. Penal Code §22.011(a)(2)(A).
- Trial court denied motion to quash indictment challenging constitutionality.
- Byrne pled nolo contendere; sentenced to 7 years and $1,500 fine.
- Indictment premised on strict liability; victim was 14; consent and prior sexual activity occurred.
- Byrne argues lack of mens rea and absence of mistake-of-fact defense render statute unconstitutional.
- Appellate review follows Fleming v. State guidance and dual state/federal analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under state due course of law | Byrne: no mens rea breaches due course | State: statute valid; strict liability justified | Not unconstitutional under Texas due course of law. |
| Constitutionality under federal due process | Byrne: no mens rea violates due process | State: strict liability valid for protecting children | Not unconstitutional under federal due process. |
| Effect of Tex. Penal Code §6.02 on mens rea | Byrne: §6.02 imposes age-knowledge mens rea | State: §6.02 does not require for §22.011(a)(2)(A) | §6.02 does not mandate mens rea for §22.011(a)(2)(A). |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. State, 622 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (strict liability for statutory rape upheld; no need to prove age knowledge)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1952) (acknowledges strict liability exceptions for child-protection crimes)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1957) (conduct alone can sustain criminal liability where justified)
- United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1922) (public policy allows strict liability in statutory rape contexts)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (upholds strict liability in indecency/child-sex offenses; discusses §6.02)
- Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (upholds §22.011(a)(2)(A) against due course challenge)
- Scott v. State, 36 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (rejects federal due process challenge to §22.011(a)(2)(A))
- Medina v. State, 986 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999) (recognizes state interest in protecting children; strict liability context)
- Aguirre v. State, 22 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discusses when mens rea may be implied or omitted)