Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 3: What Constitutes a Dating or Household Relationship?

December 14, 2020

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

There are two legal components to assault/ family violence cases.  The first I discussed yesterday when I generally outlined what the legal definition of assault was.  The second component is what constitutes a household or dating relationship?

If there is a “household or dating relationship” it triggers an “affirmative finding of family violence” or “AFFV”  This is what separates domestic assaults legally from ordinary assaults.  The AFFV is what gives spousal or domestic abuse the additional severity.

The Legalese of Affirmative Findings of Family Violence

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.013 requires a court to make an affirmative finding of family violence if the offense constituted family violence under Texas Family Code. 71.004.

Turning to the definition of 71.004, family violence is defined as:

(1) an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself;
(2) abuse, as that term is defined by Sections 261.001(1)(C), (E), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (M), by a member of a family or household toward a child of the family or household; or
(3) dating violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.0021.
Digging into Tex.Fam.C. 71.0021, it is very clear the relationship includes persons who are currently engaged in a dating relationship as well as from a relationship in the past:
(a) “Dating violence” means an act, other than a defensive measure to protect oneself, by an actor that:
(1) is committed against a victim or applicant for a protective order:
(A) with whom the actor has or has had a dating relationship; or
(B) because of the victim’s or applicant’s marriage to or dating relationship with an individual with whom the actor is or has been in a dating relationship or marriage; and
(2) is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the victim or applicant in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault.
(b) For purposes of this title, “dating relationship” means a relationship between individuals who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on consideration of:
(1) the length of the relationship;
(2) the nature of the relationship; and
(3) the frequency and type of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
(c) A casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context does not constitute a “dating relationship” under Subsection (b).
In Plain English
In the vast majority of cases there is no issue as to whether this is domestic violence or not.  But the matter can get cloudy.  What about roommates?  There are no cases reported where a complaining witness is a roommate, but legally the point could be debatable.  Also, the term “family member” can mean adult children who no longer live within the house.  So a fistfight between adult siblings or parents at the family Christmas party could be considered domestic violence.
*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 

 


Sexual Abuse Charges – Blog 4: Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child

November 25, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

As you can tell by the title, I’m writing a series of blogs on sexual abuse charges.  You might be interested in a guide or index to these articles for more information.  Today’s topic is “Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child or Young Children” (“continuous”), its legal definition, and a few of the technical legal aspects of this law.

What is “Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child” According to Texas Law?

“Continuous” is a law drafted to prevent and punish someone who sexually abuses a child victim repeatedly over months or even years.  Most of these prosecutions involve an individual child though the law allows prosecution for multiple victims.  It is codified under Tex.Pen.C. 21.02.

The punishment range for continuous sexual abuse of a child is 25 years to life with no possibility of parole.

If a person commits two acts of sexual abuse of a child which occur over 30 days apart from each other than the person has committed continuous sexual abuse of a child or young children.

It’s drafted really differently than any other sex crime charge so I think the easiest way to understand it is through examples:

Examples of Continuous:

Example 1 –

  • Defendant commits act of sexual abuse on January 1 against victim A
  • Defendant commits act of sexual abuse on January 31 against victim A or B

Example 2 –

  • Sexual abuse on January 1 against victim A
  • Sexual abuse on January 10 against victim A or B
  • Sexual abuse on January 31 against victim A or B

Example 3 –

  • Sexual abuse on January 1, year 1 against victim A
  • Sexual abuse on January 10, year 1 against victim B
  • Sexual abuse on May 1, year 3 against victim C
  • Sexual abuse on July 1, year 5 against victim D

The easiest example is number 1.  Two acts of sexual abuse more than 30 days apart from one another.  Example 2 shows the existence of a third instance of abuse which isn’t more than 30 days apart doesn’t prevent prosecution for continuous though it does cause legal complications I’ll discuss in a minute.

Examples of what ISN’T Continuous:

  • Sexual Abuse on January 1 against Victim A
  • Sexual Abuse on January 10 against Victim A or B
  • Sexual Abuse on January 30 against Victim A, B, or C

Here, all the abuse is within 30 days.  For that reason defendant can be prosecuted for whatever crimes the abuse consisted of against the individual victims – but not continuous sexual abuse of a child or young children.

What is an Act of Sexual Abuse For the Purposes of Prosecution of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child?

The statute for “Continuous” lumps pretty much all of the acts of sexual abuse together for this type of prosecution.  My guess is the legislature did this so defendants couldn’t wiggle out of a Continuous charge by nit-picking and claiming certain acts done to certain victims were not the same or didn’t constitute sexual abuse.

Here’s what the law says about acts of Sexual Abuse under 21.02(c)

(c) For purposes of this section, “act of sexual abuse” means any act that is a violation of one or more of the following penal laws:

(1) aggravated kidnapping under Section 20.04(a)(4), if the actor committed the offense with the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually;

(2) indecency with a child under Section 21.11(a)(1), if the actor committed the offense in a manner other than by touching, including touching through clothing, the breast of a child;

(3) sexual assault under Section 22.011;

(4) aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021;

(5) burglary under Section 30.02, if the offense is punishable under Subsection (d) of that section and the actor committed the offense with the intent to commit an offense listed in Subdivisions (1)-(4);

(6) sexual performance by a child under Section 43.25;

(7) trafficking of persons under Section 20A.02(a)(7) or (8); and

(8) compelling prostitution under Section 43.05(a)(2).

Where This Law Gets Extremely Complex

This statute has been the subject for much legal crazy-making for lawyers and judges for many reasons.  Courts have done their best to end the confusion but it is still the subject of controversy.  I don’t want to get too bogged down in these issues for this blog – but I’ll generally describe them because they’re still very important.

Jury Unanimity Issues

A major headache with this statute is the jury is not required to agree which allegations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and which have not.  Instead, the jury must only agree beyond a reasonable doubt two or more instances occurred beyond the 30 days.

This is important because not only is it confusing, but because the US Supreme Court has been clear any factor which enhances a punishment range must not only be submitted to a jury but then proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notice Issues

Another problem with the statute is the term “sexual abuse” combined with the unclear or fuzzy nature of children’s allegation of dates makes it extremely difficult for a defendant to know specifically what they are accused of doing so they have an opportunity to defend themselves.

Notice is always a difficult topic in child sexual abuse cases because the defendant always needs to know exactly what they are being put on trial for.  The allegations in many continuous cases don’t do much better than telling someone, “we just think you’re a really bad child molester” and now we’ll put you on trial for it.

Overview of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child or Young Children Tex.Pen.C. 21.02

This is an extremely difficult statute in many ways to legally understand much less defend.  The subject matter and the punishment possibilities make defending these cases as critical as cases can be in the courtroom.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 


Watering Down the Burden of Proof

September 21, 2010

By Dallas and Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 562-7549

texasdefensefirm.com

The burden of proof in a criminal case in Texas is “Proof beyond all reasonable doubt” of all the elements of an offense.

The courts in Texas used to reason that, “A ‘reasonable doubt’ is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs.”  Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991).

While this definition, like any other definition, wasn’t perfect — it was still very high and more importantly wasn’t subject to being manipulated consistently by prosecutors or criminal defense lawyers arguing their case.  The definition was open and shut.

In 2000, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals changed it’s mind and ruled in Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2000), “We find that the better practice is to give no definition of reasonable doubt at all to the jury.”  Despite the fact there are legal definitions for other lesser burdens of proof in civil cases, family cases, and CPS cases, the Court reasons in criminal cases that, “It is ill-advised for us to require trial courts to provide the jury with a redundant, confusing, and logically-flawed definition…”

So today, despite the mountains of case-law, research, and scholarly articles that define proof beyond all reasonable doubt, Texas courts today routinely instruct juries that on the single most important burden in a criminal case that they can simply define proof beyond all reasonable doubt as they want.  Basically the jury can make up the rule as they go along.  Experience tells me that generally favors law enforcement.

And prosecutors have, over time, increasingly seized on this glaring weakness.  Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve noticed more and more that prosecutors are dedicating time in jury selection, opening argument and closing argument to lowering the burden of proof on themselves rather than focusing on the facts of the case.

Examples include showing unfinished puzzles to prospective jurors and suggesting that because they can still make-out an image even with the large missing pieces — that the unfinished puzzle represents proof beyond all reasonable doubt; or repeatedly dedicating time in opening and closing argument not to the evidence in the case — but to giving the jury their own theory of what “beyond a reasonable doubt” should mean (and it’s always an attempt to lower the burden).

Getting the jury to understand the significance of having a high burden of proof and de-bunking the State’s creative attempts at lowering the burden is the challenge of every criminal trial lawyer.  Experienced criminal defense lawyers do everything they can to make the state accept — not shirk — their burden of proof.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For legal advice on any specific matter you should consult an attorney directly.


Computer Crimes in Texas: Online Impersonation

June 13, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Laws lag behind online crimes. Society gets outraged when stories come on the news about online bullying, for example, but the truth is that the legislature naturally plays catch-up to technology.

Who knew Facebook or Twitter would become as popular as they’ve become… Much less had the foresight to know how to keep people from victimizing one another just two or three years ago?

One recent step taken by Texas is the addition of Texas Penal Code Section 33.07 which criminalizes “online impersonation.” That statute was passed several legislative sessions ago and it criminalizes the creation of an account on a social networking site that not only isn’t you — but is purportedly someone else (or their persona) and was created for the express purpose to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten ANY person.

The punishment for such an offense would be a third degree felony (2-10 years TDC and/or a $10,000 fine). Similarly, it is a class A misdemeanor to send out a bogus email, text (or similar communication) purported to be from someone else that is intended to harm or defraud another person. (up to a year of county jail and/or a $4,000 fine).

The full impact of these particular Texas laws aren’t really fully understood. The main problem with criminal law as it relates to technology crimes is because the ways to commit crimes out-paces the solutions, prosecutors try to be “creative” with bending and stretching older laws that were never intended to apply to these newer problems. When prosecutors get “creative,” is when rights tend to get violated.

Computer crimes also have heavy overlapping issues with evidence rules, confession rules, and also search and seizure rules. The enactment of new codes (such as 33.07) is only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ for computer crime lawyers.

Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For legal advice about your own specific case, you should directly consult an attorney.


How Do I Plead Guilty to a Criminal Charge?

June 8, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

texasdefensefirm.com

I hate advising clients to plead guilty.

Hate it!

Some tough-guy lawyers will never admit to advising clients to plead guilty but every criminal defense lawyer I know will admit to not only advising clients to accept a deal but begging or pleading with a client on occasion.  Often the facts are stacked against you or the down-side of taking a case to trial is just too scary for the client.

There is no real difference between a guilty plea and a no-contest plea in Texas, so I’m referring to both in this blawg.

A guilty plea is like a contract in Texas.  Both you and the prosecution sacrifice and gain something by way of agreement (you usually sacrifice a lot more).  You are waiving your rights to trial and all that comes with it… the right to prepare, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross examine… etc.  The State is waiving their “right” to seek a greater punishment and, they would argue, their “right” to a jury trial.  In return, you are getting a specific punishment (which may be deferred adjudication depending on your plea deal) and more importantly — you’re also eliminating variables of what may happen to you at trial.  The State benefits because they get a verdict without a trial.

The plea is subject to approval by the judge.  When you plead guilty, you legally empower the judge to (a) find you guilty and (b) sentence you anywhere within the punishment range.

A Texas judge can do one of three things with a plea.  He can accept it (the vast majority of pleas are accepted — I don’t have stats but I’d be willing to bet it’s 99.5% or even greater).  He can reject the plea, or he can accept the plea and modify terms an conditions of probation assuming the plea includes probation.

If the judge flat-out rejects the plea, then he must inform the defendant he’s rejecting the plea so the defendant can withdraw his plea an assert his right to a trial.  A judge rarely knows any specific fact of your case other than what you are charged with — like a DWI, marijuana case, drug possession with intent to distribute, and so on… and for this reason, the Judge is unlikely to tinker with a deal a lawyer and prosector have worked hard to make happen.

Whether to plead guilty or not guilty is a case-by-case analysis.  I advise clients to fight on certain cases for all sorts of reasons and I advise clients to plead guilty on occasion too — because that may be the best answer or because we’re getting a really good deal under the circumstances.

Your choice to plead guilty or not guilty is an extremely important one.  Don’t make the decision alone — have a licensed attorney experienced in the area of criminal law assist you.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about your specific situation you should consult an attorney.  This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.