Skip to main content
Tag

3rd COA

Nov 30
Love0
Texas Sex Trafficking Statute

Is Texas’ Sex Trafficking Statute Overbroad?

By Sex Crimes

Appellate Court Raises a Constitutional Eyebrow at Texas’ Sex Trafficking Statute

Texas Sex Trafficking StatuteRobert Francis Ritz met a young girl on an online dating website. She was fourteen years old at the time while Ritz was Forty-four. The two began to meet up in person and began to have a sexual relationship. Ritz would pick the girl up from her parents’ house, drive her back to his house, have sex, and then drop her back off at her house. For this conduct, a jury found appellant Ritz guilty of continuous sex trafficking and assessed punishment at life in prison. Ritz appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Austin.

See the court’s opinion in Ritz v. State

How Does the Texas Penal Code Define Sex Trafficking?

The Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits continuous trafficking of persons “if, during a period that is 30 or more days in duration, the person engages two or more times in conduct that constitutes an offense under Section 20A.02 [trafficking of persons] against one or more victims.” Tex. Penal Code § 20A.03(a). A person commits trafficking of persons “if the person knowingly . . . traffics a child and by any means causes the trafficked child to engage in, or become the victim of, conduct prohibited by” an enumerated section of the Penal Code. Id. § 20A.02(a)(7). The Penal Code also provides that “‘[t]raffic’ means to transport, entice, recruit, harbor, provide, or otherwise obtain another person by any means.” Id. § 20A.01(4).

Under this broad language, Ritz falls into this category. Ritz argues, however, that he did not traffic this girl and should not be found guilty of human sex trafficking. He argues that the legislature surely did not intend this anti-human-trafficking statute to apply to cases like this where there is no “illegal trade of human beings for profit or for sex trafficking.” Further, he argues that this outcome would lead to “absurd consequences” and increase the punishment range for all sexual offenses involving a minor.

Essentially, Ritz is argued on appeal that this statute was intended for people trading other humans, not for a person driving a girl around so they can have sex together. The Court of Appeals concedes that although this act is “reprehensible,” it is not what is normally thought of as human trafficking because there was no organized crime, prostitution, or forced labor. The court also concedes that the language in the statute may be so broad that nearly every adult who has sex with a minor will be considered a human trafficker.

Nonetheless, the court concludes that as long as this statute is constitutional, then they must enforce it as it was written and not how it should have been written. The court also offers that it could have been possible that the legislature did want to increase the penalties for persons who commit sexual crimes with minors under the “trafficking” umbrella.

Effectively after this case, most every person who has committed a sexual crime with a minor will be eligible to be punished under the trafficking umbrella which faces harsh penalties as seen here. The court noted that Ritz did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute so the court did not look into it. Attorneys facing this same dilemma might raise this constitutional argument to have a better chance on appeal.

Sep 17
Love0

Discovery Violation…Now What?

By Uncategorized

In State v. Banda, the Third District Court of Appeals (Austin) decided a case at the end of last month addressing an issue regarding a discovery violation by the State.  The opinion addresses a key issue: what does a court do to remedy a discovery violation?  Often, the primary consideration is not whether a violation occurred, but what a court should do about it.

Let’s review the law on discovery:

Brady v. Maryland – A prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence if it is material to either guilt or punishment, including impeachment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); see also Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (describing Brady parameters in Texas).

Under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, Brady breaks down to two duties related to pretrial disclosure of evidence by the State:
1) Disclose all favorable, material evidence in her possession.
2) Preserve and make available to the defendant any favorable, material physical evidence that the accused cannot otherwise obtain and that may be material to his defense.

See also CCP art. 39.14; Whitchurch v State, 650 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (no general defense right of discovery in Texas). BUT, see also Nielsen v. State, 836 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1992, pet. Ref’d) (The prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence regardless of whether the defense files a discovery motion requesting the material. But even if the evidence is requested, the State does not have to disclose it unless it is also material to the defense.)
Though a prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, a prosecutor’s open file policy is generally sufficient to comply with the prosecutor’s Brady obligation. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).

As stated above, often the primary consideration for the trial court is not whether a Brady violation occurred, but what a court should do about it.  In Banda, the trial court decided that the State’s failure to comply with a court order on discovery was grounds for the court to dismiss the State’s case with prejudice to refile.  The appellate court did not focus on whether a discovery violation had occurred – it technically had.  The appellate court’s focus was on the fact that the trial court dismissed the State’s case without prejudice as a result of the violation.  The Court found that absent constitutional or statutory authorization a trial court cannot dismiss a prosecution except on the motion of the prosecuting attorney and that the trial court does not have general authority to dismiss the indictment without prejudice in absence of the State’s consent.  State v. Pambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365, 366, 370 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2005); State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).  In Banda’s case there were no circumstances existing that would allow the court to make such a dismissal (even given the discovery order violation).

Ultimately, the Court held that “failure to comply with court orders on discovery may warrant suppression of the evidence in question, but discovery abuse is not recognized in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as a basis for dismissing the case with prejudice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 39.14 (West Supp. 2010)”. Id. at page 3.

Banda shows defense attorneys that discovery violations are extremely important and can be effective to win a case but only as long as the attack is not misplaced on attempting to get the court to dismiss the case.

Sep 08
Love0
Barshaw v. State 2010

A Simple Truth: Sexual Assault Conviction Reversed for Improper Expert Testimony

By Sex Crimes

Barshaw v. State 2010It’s been my experience that folks with mental retardation can be painfully honest, really.  I mean, it’s like a little kid who looks at somebody and says in the supermarket, ‘You’re really old,’ or, you know, whatever little kids do.

That was part of the testimony of an MHMR expert at the sexual assault trial of Mark Barshaw.  Barshaw was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally retarded victim, who was 21 years-old at the time, but functioned at approximately a 10 year-old level.  Upon hearing this testimony, the defense counsel objected, “You can’t have somebody come in and testify to a class of people are truthful.”  The State responded by stating that it was simply trying to show how mentally retarded persons “adapt” and that the testimony also went to show that “she’s incapable of either appraising the the situation or the nature of the act.”  The trial judge allowed the testimony to continue.

…again, it’s been my experience in the hundreds and hundreds of people with mental retardation that I’ve seen, that it’s more going to be that they’re painfully honest.  They haven’t learned the social skills and probably never will to know when you should lie or when it would be socially appropriate to not tell the truth because it might hurt someone’s feelings, or things of that nature, to hold things back.

In allowing the testimony of the MHMR expert, the trial judge abused its discretion, said the 3rd District Court of Appeals (Austin).  The Court explained that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that evidence rule 702 “does not permit an expert to give an opinion that the complainant or a class of persons to which the complainant belongs is truthful.”  Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).  Such an expert, is essentially telling the jury that they can believe the victim in the instant case.  This, held the CCA, “is not ‘expert’ testimony of the kind which will assist the jury under rule 702.”  Id. at 711.

The Court also cited the CCA case Schutz v. State.  957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).  In Schutz, the CCA explained that:

children and mentally retarded persons are viewed by society as “impaired.” When such a witness is expected to testify, expert testimony should be permitted in the offering party’s case in chief concerning the ability of the class of persons suffering the “impairment” to distinguish reality from fantasy and to perceive, remember, and relate the kinds of events at issue in the case.  The court emphasized that such testimony should be limited to the “impaired” class’s ability to accurately relate events and should not extend to the class’s tendency to do so; the latter would violate the holding in Yount.

Id. at 70 (emphasis added).  Having violated the CCA holdings in Yount and Schutz by allowing the expert to testify that mentally retarded persons are, as a class, truthful, the Court found harm and reversed the sexual assault conviction.

Justice Henson dissented and would have held that there was no harm in the trial judge’s erroneous ruling.