Whatley v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1511
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child by touching and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.
- On direct appeal, appellant argued the evidence was legally insufficient because the state did not dispute his claim that he was asleep and that his actions were involuntary.
- The court of appeals reversed and acquitted, relying on insufficiency to show voluntariness.
- The State petitioned for discretionary review and this Court reversed, remanding for consideration of the final point of error.
- The complainant testified to three separate incidents (Arkansas cabin, recliner during vacation, and Canton, Texas) occurring when she was ten or eleven years old.
- Trial testimony and a CAC interview conflicted on whether appellant was actually asleep during the incidents, affecting the voluntariness analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports voluntariness under 6.01(a). | State argues the jury could infer voluntariness. | Whatley contends the conduct was nonvolitional if asleep. | Evidence could support voluntary conduct. |
| Whether the standard for sufficiency review was applied correctly. | State asserts proper Jackson v. Virginia framework. | Whatley argues appellate court misapplied the standard. | Court reaffirmed the sufficiency standard and its application. |
| Whether conflicts between CAC interview and trial testimony negate voluntariness. | State emphasizes aggregate inferences support guilt. | Whatley points to inconsistencies to undermine inference of awareness. | Court held a reasonable jury could find appellant awake and acting voluntarily. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (distinction between voluntariness and mens rea)
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (sufficiency review standard guidance)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (federal standard for due-process sufficiency review)
- Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (voluntariness framework for physical movements)
- Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (prescribed appellate review considerations)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (definition of inference and appellate resolve of conflicts)
- Whatley v. State, 415 S.W.3d 530 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2013) (earlier insufficiency ruling relevant to review)