William Ellis Shimp v. State
11-16-00235-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Appellant William Ellis Shimp was convicted by a jury of prostitution—solicitation of a person under 18—and indecency with a child by exposure; he pleaded true to two enhancements including a prior indecency-with-a-child conviction; sentences: life for solicitation, 20 years and $10,000 fine for indecency.
- Allegations: victim J.D., age 15, visited Shimp’s home with her 13-year-old boyfriend; while giving Shimp a back rub, she alleges Shimp exposed himself and encouraged sexual touching; Shimp admitted to receiving a massage and said he wore a towel.
- Defense pursued a fabrication theory, emphasizing J.D.’s mental-health history, behavioral problems, and alleged contemporaneous sexual misconduct between J.D. and Z.B.; trial court limited cross-examination of J.D. on alleged prior sexual misconduct for lack of demonstrated causal connection to motive to fabricate.
- The State offered extraneous-offense testimony from D.J.B. that, as a child (~10–11), she gave Shimp a massage during which he touched her breast and solicited sex; trial court admitted that testimony under Art. 38.37 after a Rule 403 balancing.
- Appellant challenged: (1) trial-court limitations on confrontation/cross-examination about the complainant’s alleged sexual misconduct; (2) denial of challenges for cause and request for an extra peremptory strike (veniremember No. 36); and (3) admission of the extraneous-offense testimony (sufficiency and Rule 403).
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) exclusion of the prior-sexual-misconduct inquiry was within discretion because Appellant failed to show a causal link to motive to fabricate; (2) denial of challenge for cause to veniremember No. 36 was not an abuse of discretion; (3) extraneous-offense testimony was admissible under Art. 38.37 and not excluded by Rule 403, and any error would have been harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limiting cross-examination of complainant about alleged prior sexual misconduct | Court properly limited cross‑examination where no causal link shown | Shimp: evidence would show motive to fabricate and violated Confrontation Clause | Trial court acted within discretion; no Sixth Amendment violation—no causal connection shown (Irby/Johnson framework) |
| Denial of challenges for cause / extra peremptory strike (Veniremember No. 36) | State: veniremember said she could follow law after explanation | Shimp: veniremember biased toward believing a child over an adult in sexual cases | Denial not an abuse of discretion; veniremember affirmed ability to follow law after instruction; error not preserved for another veniremember |
| Admission of extraneous-offense testimony — sufficiency to submit to jury | State: D.J.B.’s testimony alone suffices to prove extraneous indecency beyond reasonable doubt | Shimp: single, remote, inconsistent witness; insufficient and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Testimony sufficient (child’s testimony alone adequate); probative value outweighed prejudice under Rule 403 and Art. 38.37; admission proper; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Confrontation Clause purpose: test believability of witnesses)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (trial courts have wide latitude to limit cross‑examination but limits must not deny effective cross‑examination)
- Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (requirement to show causal connection between offered evidence and witness’s motive/bias)
- Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applied Irby’s causal‑connection test to prior sexual behavior/counseling evidence)
- Bezerra v. State, 485 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Art. 38.37 and Rule 403 interplay; extraneous sexual‑offense evidence admissible for propensity but still subject to Rule 403 balancing)