Young v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 828
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant, a registered sex offender, moved to a new residence but did not notify authorities as required by statute.
- Two-paragraph indictment alleged failure to report before moving or after moving; trial charged in disjunctive form.
- Trial jury was instructed to convict if it unanimously found a failure to report, but did not require unanimity on whether the report failed before or after the move.
- Appellant had prior compliant history with registration; he signed CR-32 forms acknowledging reporting duties.
- Neighbors' complaints prompted investigation; deputies learned appellant had not reported his address change and a warrant was issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the jury need to unanimity on the method of failure to report? | Young argues the charge allowed non-unanimous verdict on different manners. | Young contends the offense is umbrella-like; unanimity should cover each method. | Unanimity required on failure to report; not on the specific manner. |
| Is the failure to report a change of address a single offense or multiple offenses for multiple moves? | State treated as single offense with two alternative means. | Appellant claims two separate offenses per move. | One crime per change of address; two manners within single offense. |
| Should Article 62.055(a) be treated as an umbrella statute or as distinct nature-of-conduct offenses? | Solicits multiple duties under Chapter 62 with potential multiple offenses. | Umbrella statute risks unfairness if treated as multiple offenses. | Article 62.055(a) creates a single offense focused on reporting duty with two alternative ways. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (statutory verb analysis for unanimity; alternative means may constitute single offense)
- Huffman v. State, 267 S.W.3d 902 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (nature of conduct vs. circumstantial focus; multiple methods may support one offense)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (umbrella offenses require unanimity on which underlying violations occurred)
- Villanueva v. State, 257 S.W.3d 527 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (unit of prosecution for address changes; supports single-offense interpretation)
- Aguirre v. State, 732 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (precedent on procedure and jury unanimity in similar contexts)