Williams, Michael David
PD-0202-15
| Tex. App. | Mar 10, 2015Background
- Michael David Williams was indicted and convicted by a Navarro County jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child (two or more acts between Jan 1, 2008 and Jan 30, 2010); punishment 99 years imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed as modified on Jan 29, 2015.
- The indictment alleged three predicate acts: indecency by touching the child’s genitals, causing the child to touch his genitals, and aggravated sexual assault by contact of the child’s sexual organ with the defendant’s mouth.
- The jury charge nevertheless included language treating touching a child’s breast (including through clothing) as a form of indecency that could qualify as a predicate act for continuous sexual abuse — a statutory misstatement because the continuous-sexual-abuse statute excludes mere touching of the breast as a predicate indecency-by-touching.
- The evidentiary record was weak and inconsistent: the child’s testimony was vague and often placed alleged acts before the statutory period; the mother’s outcry and written statements provided most of the alleged timeframe-related details but contained inconsistencies; some alleged acts were extraneous or lacked dates.
- The jury deliberated seven hours, sent a note they were deadlocked, and returned a verdict only after receiving an Allen instruction. The State and defense closing arguments focused primarily on genital touching rather than breast-touching.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury-charge error: inclusion of "breast" touching as qualifying indecency for continuous sexual abuse | Charge misstated elements; allowing jurors to convict based on breast-touching (including through clothing) egregiously harmed Williams and violated substantial rights — requires reversal | Error existed but was not preserved at trial; reversal requires proof of egregious harm, which the State contends is not shown | Court of Appeals: error was real but not preserved; reviewing for egregious harm, court concluded any harm was not egregious and affirmed conviction (but modified judgment on fees) |
| Sufficiency of evidence relevance to charge error | Misleading charge especially harmful given weak, contradictory evidence and timing gaps | Evidence also showed genital and anal touching and forcing the child to touch his penis; extraneous acts admissible to show relationship; jurors presumed to follow application paragraph naming genitals | Court: record contained sufficient evidence of genital-touching predicates and counsel arguments focused on genital acts; the charge error did not make conviction egregiously more persuasive |
| Jury unanimity on specific acts (lesser-included confusion) | Charge allowed jurors to convict without agreeing on specific act/dates, exacerbating error | Application paragraph specified the charged acts (genitals) and jurors must follow instructions | Court: presumed jurors followed the application paragraph describing genitals; misinformation in other parts did not produce egregious harm |
| Attorney's fees assessed without evidence of ability to pay | Williams argued fees improperly ordered | State conceded error as to fees | Court modified judgment to delete attorney-fee obligation (affirmed as modified) |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (two-step jury-charge-review framework and egregious-harm standard for unpreserved charge error)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (egregious-harm standard and factors for assessing harm)
- Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (factors for evaluating whether charge error denied a fair trial)
- Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (presumption that jurors follow court's instructions)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (remedy—modify judgment to remove improperly assessed attorney's fees)