Wilson v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 963
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Neighbors Elisa Wilson and Nicole Bailey had a falling-out; Bailey accused Wilson of harassing her and filed a criminal complaint.
- Wilson left six voicemail messages for Bailey over ~10 months (complaints about a dog, driveway runoff/deed-restrictions, accusations in public, apology, a demand not to approach, and a claim about a newspaper seen on security camera).
- Trial evidence included the recordings and testimony about in-person confrontations, yelling, photographing, and other hostile conduct.
- A jury convicted Wilson of telephone harassment under Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(4); she received 12 months’ community supervision.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) messages separated by more than ~30 days were not “repeated,” and (2) a facially legitimate reason for a call negated an inference of harassing intent.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding the evidence legally sufficient and clarifying the statutory meaning of “repeated.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “repeated” telephone communications | Must be more than one call and can be satisfied by recurrence (State) | “Repeated” requires calls in close temporal proximity (Wilson relying on Scott dicta) | “Repeated” requires more than one call; no statutory temporal-proximity requirement; frequency/proximity are evidentiary, not element-defining. |
| Effect of facially legitimate content on culpability | Facial legitimacy does not automatically negate criminal intent (State) | A call with a facially legitimate purpose negates inference of intent to harass (court of appeals) | Facial legitimacy of content does not per se negate intent or manner; context and cumulative evidence govern intent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Jackson review) | Evidence as a whole (6 calls + hostile conduct) supports jury inference of intent to harass | Only two calls close in time and some calls had legitimate purposes—insufficient as matter of law | Under Jackson, viewing all evidence favorably to verdict, evidence was legally sufficient to support conviction. |
| Constitutional vagueness/overbreadth concern | Not presented on sufficiency review; interpretation need not be narrowed here | Broad interpretation invites vagueness/overbreadth challenges and chills speech | Concurring judges warned of potential vagueness issues; majority declined to decide constitutional challenges now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (previous discussion of “repeated” contacts; Court disavowed its dicta requiring temporal proximity)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (examples of evidentiary sufficiency and assessing cumulative evidence)