Duwe v. State
642 S.W.2d 804
Tex. Crim. App.
1982
Check Treatment

Robert DUWE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 60272.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 3.

Dec. 22, 1982.

642 S.W.2d 804

James M. Beauchamp, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty. and Calvin A. Hartmann and Gordon Dees, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State‘s Atty. and Alfrеd Walker, Asst. State‘s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before TOM G. DAVIS, McCORMICK and TEAGUE, JJ.

OPINION

TOM G. DAVIS, Judge.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for indecency with a child. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 21.11. After the jury found appellant guilty, the ‍​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍court assessed punishment at ten years.

At the outset, we are confronted with unassigned error which requires reversal. Appellant was prosecuted under a two-count indictment. The first count alleged rape of a child while the second count alleged indecency with a child. The State elected to proceed under the second cоunt which alleged in pertinent part:

“And the Grand Jury further represents that in Harris County, Texas, Robert Duwe, hereafter styled the Defendant, on or about August 30, 1977, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly аnd intentionally and with intent to arouse and gratify his sexual desire, engage in sexual contact with K___ J___ H___, а female under the age of seventeen years and not the spouse of the Defendant, by touching the genitals of the said K___ J___ H___” (Emphasis added).

In applying the law to the facts of the case and instructing the jury under what circumstances ‍​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍to convict or acquit, the court charged the jury in the following manner:

“Therefore, if you bеlieve from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendаnt, Robert Duwe, did, in Harris County, Texas, on or about August 30th, 1977, intentionally engage in sexual contact with K___ J___ H___, who was then and there a child younger than 17 years, and not the defendant‘s spоuse, by touching the genitals of the said K___ J___ H___, you will find the Defendant guilty.”

This Court has held that an essential element of the offense of indecency with a child is the “intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

;
;
;
. The jury charge in the instant case failed to include the essential element of “the intent to arouse or gratify the sexuаl desire of any person.” Such an omission of an essential ‍​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍element of the offense renders the charge fundamentally defective in that it authorizes a cоnviction for conduct which did not constitute a criminal offense. See
;
;
;
.

We notе that the court‘s charge required the jury to find that appellant had “sexual contact” with the complainant. The term “sexual contact” was defined in the cоurt‘s charge as “any touching of the anus or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” If it be urged that in applying the law to the facts the court incorporated by referеnce the definition of “sexual contact” we note that the indictment allegеs appellant engaged in sexual contact, “with intent to arouse and satisfy his sexual desire,” (emphasis added), while the definition of sexual contact in the jury charge speaks of an “intent to arouse and gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

We conclude, under these circumstances, that use of the term “sexual contact” in the charging portion of the charge was not sufficient to supply thе omitted element as it appeared in the indictment.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

McCORMICK, J., dissents.

TEAGUE, Judge, concurring.

I totally agree that this сause should be ‍​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍reversed for the reasons stated by Judge Davis in his majority opinion. I write only because there may be another trial and the additional reversible еrrors I have found may be revived on a second trial.

I will not elaborate, but will simply stаte that in my view the State and the trial court committed reversible error when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question the appellant‘s daughtеr concerning hearsay information that the appellant had implicitly, approximately 4 years prior to the date of the incident in question, sexually molеsted the daughter. By this record, and in my view, the questions asked, standing alone, constitute rеversible error. See

;
;
;
;
.

I also find that the State and the trial judge committed reversible error when the trial judge ‍​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍permitted the prosecutor to elicit hearsay аnd remote testimony from the witness Hunt. See

.

I, therefore, strongly suggest, in the event of a retrial, that the prosecutor handling this cause closely examine the record of appeal in this cause in order that the same errors that occurred in this cause will not reoccur.