Steven Dale Hawkins v. State
521 S.W.3d 411
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Steven Dale Hawkins was convicted in 2003 of one count of aggravated sexual assault and six counts of indecency with a child (three by contact, three by exposure); punishments included 75 years for the assault and multiple consecutive terms for indecency counts.
- Victim K.M., Hawkins’ niece by marriage, testified to multiple incidents of oral penetration, contact, and exposure occurring between ages 10–11 while living in the same home. She described numerous separate acts.
- Officers interviewed the family; Hawkins voluntarily (per police testimony) accompanied an officer to the station, was read Miranda warnings, waived rights, and gave a written statement admitting several abusive incidents.
- Hawkins raised three issues on appeal: (1) trial court erred denying his motion to suppress his statement as involuntary/tainted by an illegal arrest, (2) double jeopardy violation for convictions on two indecency-by-exposure counts (Counts Five and Seven), and (3) legal insufficiency of evidence for Counts Five and Seven.
- The court held Hawkins was not seized under the Fourth Amendment when he went to the station, his confession was admissible, the evidence supported multiple distinct indecency-by-exposure acts, and convictions did not violate double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of statement: voluntariness/illegal arrest | Hawkins: his statement was involuntary because he was effectively seized/illegally arrested and/or promised leniency | State: Hawkins voluntarily accompanied officer, was not under arrest, read Miranda, waived rights | Court: No Fourth Amendment seizure; statement admissible; suppression denial affirmed |
| Double jeopardy: Counts Five & Seven (indecency by exposure) | Hawkins: convictions for exposure were subsumed by other indecency/contact convictions and punishments duplicate same offense | State: Legislature intended separate units of prosecution for exposure and contact; evidence showed multiple acts | Court: Exposure and contact are distinct units; sufficient separate acts shown; no double jeopardy violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts Five & Seven | Hawkins: insufficient evidence to prove distinct exposure acts for those counts | State: victim testimony and defendant statement establish multiple distinct acts including exposures | Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, rational juror could find at least three exposures; evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Speights v. State, 464 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (indecency by exposure and by contact are separate units of prosecution)
- Maldonado v. State, 461 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (discusses limits on subsumption and when Patterson applies)
- Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (exposure and contact protect different harms; each act can be separately punished)
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (articulated subsumption doctrine for penetration offenses)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (confessions tainted by exploitation of illegal arrest are inadmissible unless causal chain is broken)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (determining when return to station after seizure renders statements inadmissible)
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003) (facts establishing seizure where suspect was restrained and transported by police)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for warnings and waiver before custodial interrogation)