Taylor v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 326
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Taylor was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault based on acts occurring before his seventeenth birthday and after age seventeen, with indictments dating primarily to September 1, 2002.
- The state presented extensive testimony about pre-17 conduct, including acts described as starting in early childhood and continuing into late adolescence.
- The jury instructions did not include an 8.07(b) age-based limitation instruction; defense did not object to the charge at trial.
- The trial court did include a limitation-related instruction about the statute of limitations, but it did not limit pre-17 conduct as required by 8.07(b).
- The court of appeals held that the lack of an 8.07(b) instruction deprived Taylor of a fair trial.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held that 8.07(b) is the applicable law and that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to include the instruction, but concluded there was no egregious harm and reversed the court of appeals to address remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was 8.07(b) mandatory sua sponte instruction? | Taylor | State | Yes; 8.07(b) required sua sponte instruction. |
| Did the absence of 8.07(b) instruction violate Article 36.14? | Taylor's charges lacked proper law. | State | Yes; error occurred by omitting the law applicable to the case. |
| Was error subject to Almanza/36.19–egregious harm analysis given no objection? | Harm was egregious due to unbounded chronology. | No egregious harm; evidence supported verdict. | No egregious harm; adequate evidence supported conviction. |
| Does the trial record show the jury could convict on post-17 acts even with 8.07(b) omission? | Charge allowed pre- and post-17 acts; problematic. | Evidence supports conviction regardless. | Record supports conviction without exclusive pre-17 focus. |
| What is the proper disposition on appeal given the error? | Court should affirm reversal. | Court should affirm reversal with remand for further issues. | Reverse court of appeals; remand for remaining issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alberty v. State, 250 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statute-of-limitations instruction; 8.07(b) interplay)
- Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (egregious-harm standard depends on charge impact)
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defensive issue vs. law applicable; sua sponte duties)
- Alm anza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (two-step Almanza harm standard for trial error)
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jury charge accuracy; 36.14 analysis)
- Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (defects in jury charges; sua sponte duty considerations)
- Alberty v. State, 250 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (addressed 8.07(b) and jury-charge interplay on remand)