Williams, Eric Jarrod, PD-1669-14

Background

Eric Jarrod Williams was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by exposure (Tex. Penal Code §21.11) and received a ten-year sentence probated for ten years with conditions; conviction affirmed by the 14th Court of Appeals on Sept. 23, 2014.
The complaint (J.L.) and other minors testified about multiple incidents in which Williams allegedly masturbated with or in front of minors while showing pornographic videos; the State elected one incident at Williams’s home (with C.J.) as the basis for the indictment.
The defense argued the events never occurred, that witnesses were inconsistent or coerced, and that an exculpatory recorded conversation and other evidence were improperly excluded or ignored.
Pretrial and trial rulings admitted testimony about numerous extraneous acts (other incidents involving different victims, times, and places); the trial court allowed the evidence with limiting instructions and stated it was admitted for purposes such as motive, intent, and relationship.
On appeal Williams challenged (1) admission of extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) and (2) legal sufficiency of evidence supporting the specific elected incident. The court of appeals affirmed, holding extraneous evidence was admissible under article 38.37 and that the evidence was legally sufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Williams)	Held
Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence against the complainant (J.L.)	Evidence of other acts shows state of mind, relationship, grooming; admissible under article 38.37 and permissible for motive/intent/relationship	Admission violated Rule 404(b); extraneous acts were character-conformity evidence, not tied to identity or plan, and unfairly prejudicial	Court: Admissible — article 38.37 applies to child-sex prosecutions and renders extraneous acts probative of relationship/state of mind
Admissibility of extraneous-offense testimony by other minor (D.B.)	Testimony relevant to defendant’s conduct with minors	Testimony was non-38.37 extraneous evidence and inadmissible under Rule 404(b)	Court: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) given other evidence supporting verdict
Sufficiency of evidence for the elected incident	Testimony from J.L., corroborating outcry and other witnesses and reasonable inferences suffice under Jackson/Brooks standard	Evidence regarding the elected incident (C.J.’s trial testimony) was inconsistent and insufficient; no direct proof appellant exposed genitals at the elected occasion	Court: Evidence legally sufficient; jury could credit J.L. and discredit inconsistent testimony; conviction affirmed
Notice of extraneous-offense evidence under art. 38.37	State provided hearing disclosure before guilt-innocence and closing argument relied on grooming/relationship theory	Williams argued he did not specifically request art. 38.37 notice and lacked proper notice	Court: Notice requirement not strictly fatal on appeal; State had disclosed extraneous acts at pretrial hearing and article 38.37 may be considered on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discusses admissibility of extraneous acts for identity and limits of modus operandi proof)
Schexnider v. State, 943 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997) (extraneous acts admissible when interwoven as part of the same transaction)
Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (repetition of same act alone does not establish a plan for Rule 404(b) purposes)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (directs single Jackson legal-sufficiency standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal sufficiency standard: review in light most favorable to verdict)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard for assessing harm from nonconstitutional trial error under Rule 44.2(b))