William James Akin v. State
06-14-00180-CR
Tex. Crim. App.Jul 20, 2015Background
- William James Akin was tried jointly on four indictments (one sexual assault of a child, three indecency with a child); first jury mistrialed; second jury convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to 20 years on each.
- Police seized Akin’s home laptop hours after arrest and recovered internet search/browser history and pornographic images.
- State admitted four exhibits (images + search history); defense objected to relevance, authentication, and Rule 403 prejudice.
- Family members testified they did not view or create the searches/images and that the laptop was primarily used by Akin; wife testified about his frequent and escalating porn use.
- Defense also challenged the State’s for-cause strike of veniremember Horner; appellant later said “no” when the court asked for objections after the panel was seated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Akin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility — relevance of porn images & search history to prove intent to arouse/gratify sexual desire | Images and browser history are circumstantial evidence of Akin’s sexual desires and thus relevant to intent and to rebut fabrication theory | Evidence not provably attributable to Akin (shared computer); not used with victim so irrelevant; unfairly prejudicial | Admitted: court acted within discretion — evidence was relevant to intent, sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial indicia, and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Authentication/predicate for computer evidence | Preliminary showing by circumstantial indicia (ownership, proximity in time, family testimony, wife’s statements) sufficed for jury to resolve authenticity | Insufficient predicate because others had access and no direct proof Akin viewed/downloaded files | Adequate predicate found: Butler standard permits preliminary circumstantial indicia; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Rule 403 prejudice (graphic nature) | State limited exhibits to four items, only two graphic; limiting instruction given; strong need to prove intent and rebut fabrication | Graphic material risks irrational jury decision and unfair prejudice | No abuse: probative force and State’s need outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction and narrow presentation minimized unfair prejudice |
| Challenge for cause (veniremember Horner) — preservation & merits | Horner equivocated and ultimately said he would refuse to convict on testimony from one witness; State entitled to strike for cause; defense later waived by saying “no” when asked for objections | Appellant argues Horner meant only that one witness would not convince him, so excusal was error and was not properly preserved | No reversible error: appellant failed to preserve a specific objection and later waived; even on merits court reasonably excused Horner for cause; any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard and "limited right to be wrong")
- Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preliminary authentication may rest on circumstantial indicia)
- Ochoa v. State, 982 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (intent to arouse or gratify is an element for indecency with a child)
- Sarabia v. State, 227 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2007) (pornography evidence as circumstantial proof of sexual intent)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (deference to trial court under Rule 403 review)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors to weigh under Rule 403)
- Gonzalez v. State, 353 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (great deference to trial court on challenges for cause)