Dane Whitworth. David Sheppard, Ruth Ellen Gura and Gerry orris ...

The offender primarily responsible for 46. Tex. Crim. R. Evid. Rule 642.
504,59 L. Ed. 2d 774; Prim v. Slate. 496 S.W. 2d
committing sex offense against children is 47. Tex. Crim. R. Evid. Rule 60l(a)(2). 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Onega v. Slate, 462
48. See Warsort v. Slm, 596 S.W. 2d 867 (Tex. S.W. 2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970).
the pedophile. The pedophile may be a Crim. Am. 1980) as an examde of the difficulty of 74. Eoahvrighl v. Stole 94 Tea. Cr. R. 87, 249
"fixed pedophile." one having an exclu- ~tluirineEhildren to tske or ;ndentand the oath. S.W. 1075 (1923); Robemon v. Sme (Cr. App. 1899)
sive preference for prepubertal children, i9. S& Watson. supra at 870-871. Recollectron 49S.W. 398; Olwson v. Stole (1884) I7 Tex. App.
or a "regressive pedophile", one who has is usually merged into narrafion.
292 -. -
50. Walson, srpra at 870-871.
a crisis oriented preference for children.
75. Myers v. Sf&, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 426,289 S.W.
51. Nicholas v. Slate (1925) 99Te~i. Crim. R. 504, 49 (1926); Marion v, Slate 80 Tex. Cr. R. 478, 190
Pedophiles may also be divided according 270 S.W. 555,556:
S.W. 499 (1916).
to their means for achieving the desired 52. Gardo v. Srare, 573 S.\V. 2d 12 (Tex. Cnm. 76 Tex. Crim. R. End 8 8Q3(2).
sexual contact. Nan-pedophiles form a sec- App. 1978).
77. See generally, Hamrd v. Sfare. I I I Tex. Cr.
ond and residual class of sex offenders. 53. Mar& v. Stole, 629 S.W. 2d 253,254 flex. R. 539, 15 S.W. 2d 638 (1929).
Ape.-Corpus Christi 119821 no writ).
78. Althoueh
This class is basically composed of peo-
- the ~hrase "soontanems and
54. Relevant ev~dcncemeans evidence having any unreflecting statement" is not used in Criminal Rule
ple who do not exhibit pedophilia as a tendency to make theexistence of any fact that is of 852(2), the rule is dined at provid~ng some ssfeguards
primary behavior pattern but may, onrare consequence to the determination of the action more of reliability for its admissions =an exception10 the
occasions, engage in sexual activity with probable ar less probable than it would he without hearsay rule S9e elearly eg. McCarmick's Hmdbook
the widme. Tex. Crim. R. Evid. 401.
a child.
ofthe Law of Evidence Q 297, at 704 (2d ed. 1972).
55. See, eg., West v. Stare, I41 Tex.Cr R. 233, 79. See Rav
The effects of the pedophilic and non-
.- P 915 n. - 157: Armable. ?his type of
147 S.W 2d 791 (1941)
statement may also qualify a present-iense
pedophilic offender's attack on children 56. Klinedisr v. Slate, 159 Tex. Cr. R.510, 265 imo-ion.
can he devastating. Depending upon the S.W. 2d 593 (1953) cert. den. 347 U.S. 930.98 L. i0. Oullmvv. Sfate, 125 Tex. CI. R. 636.69s W.
age and development of the child, he or Ed. 1082, 74 S. Ct. 534.
2d 120 (1934).
57. hlum v. Slate, 449S.W. 2d 65 (Tex. Crim. 81. See William v. Slale, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 536.
she can suffer social and emotional dis- App. 1969); See generally, SRinner v. Slnle, 144 170 S.W. 2d 482 (1943); see also Slough, "Sponorders.
An enhancement of these disorders Crim. 616, I65 S.W. Zd(1942); Hart v. Stute, 139 tanmus Statement and State of Mind," 46 Iolm L.
has often times occd through our crim- Crim. 101, I38 S W. 2d 818 (1940).
Rev. 224,243 (1961).
inal justice system. Delays, court room at- 58. Costillo v. Sfnre, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 494, 182 82. Haiev v. Slote 157 Tex. Cr. R. 150.247 S.W.
S.W. 2d 718 (1944).
mosphere, and the lack of understanding
2d 400 (19;~). Sa. Guntrully CuliNo v. Stole 134
59. Lewis v. Store, 154Tex. Cr. R. 329,226S.W. 'Tw. Cr. K. 217. 115 S.W. 2J413(193X) (slatc~ltcnt
have caused the child to encounter addi- 2d 861 (19SO), See also, Rods v. Slate, 105 Tex. made aRer kzdnapping).
tional stress.
Cr. R. 392,289 S W. 52 (1926); which held that it 83. The assumption here is that the condition of
Effective prosecution also requires an is not not proper to ask the victim if she would have sufferingexist from the timeaftheinjury to hem&understanding
of the type of sexual of- mnsonted if the defendant had sought to have inter- ing of the statement See Freeman v. Stale 91 Tex.
course with hcr on a date subsequent to that alleged Cr. R. 410, 239 S.W. 969, 971 (1922); See also
fenses involved and the manner of prov- in the indictment
Wili~ams v. State 145 Tex. Cr. R. 536, I70 S.W. 2d
ing the offense. An understanding of the 60. BQWII~ v. Stole, 685 S.W. 2d 472 (App. 2 Dm. 482 119431
offender, the victim, and the criminal 1985).
84: ~e,t;ell v. Slate, 34 Ten. Cr. R. 260, 30 S.W.
justice system will enable the bench and 61: Sinrsv. Slate, 156Tex. Cr. R. 218.240S.W. 226 (1895).
2d 297 (1951).
bar to apply that understanding to the pros-
85. Tex. Crim. R. Evid. Rule I04allow thecoua
62. Nk v Slate. 150 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 198 S.W. to consider any evidence, excqt that which is in wok
ecution of sex offenses.
2d 907 (1946).
tion of a privrle~e, in determinmp . the admiss~hrliry
In closing, it is hoped that article will
.
63. Tex. Cwle film. PEW. Ann. art. 38.07 (Ver- of evidence. -
be a reminder to those of us in the legal non 1985).
86. Gri@tlt v. Slate 142Tex. Cr. R. 559, 155 S.W.
field that laws and decisions which oro- 64. Id.; See Waldrop v. Stare, 662 S.W. 2d 612 2d 612 (1941) (Here the complaint made after the
ffex. Am. 14 Disk 19831.
child came from the movies.) (Held details
mote injustice through a lack of ugder- 65. T&. Cade. Crim. PA. Arm. art. 38.07 (Ver- inadmissible).
standing are just as dangerous as the in- nnn - 19KO - --,
87. Tex. Crim R. End 803(2).
justice sought to be constrained. 66, See getzerally Awlin v. State, I I3 Ter. Cr. R. 88. Lawv. Sfare 133Tex. Cr.R. 627,113 S W.
217, 18 S.W. 2d 676 (1929).
2d 909 (1938).
67. G@Ih v. Stale, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 155 89. See Hvles v. Stale 130 Tex. Cr. R. 154. 92
S.W. 2d 612 (1941).
S.W. 2d 450 (1936).
68. Murlev v. Stnle. 105 Tex. Cr. R. 276. 288 90. American General Insurance Co. v. Colemarr
35. The Utles of "Sewal Assault" and "Ag- S.W. 441 (1626); Mclnlosh v. Stale, 91 Tex. Cr. R. I57 Tex. 377, 303 S.W. 2d 370 (1957).
gravated Sexual Assault" do not contain the words 392, 239 S.W. 622 (1922).
91. A8my v. Slale 143 TM. Cr. R. 252, I57 S.W.
"of a child", ho~.ever for sake of clarity these wards 69. Chavez v. State, I07 Tex. Cr. R. 239, 296 2d 924, Texosh,lentrSnn Rwy. W. V. Hughes (Com.
wdl be used.
S.W. 554 (1927); see also Tex. Jut 3rd, Criminal App. 1932) 53 S.W. 2d 448 (1941).
36. Texas Penal Code 5 21.11(a).
Law B 394, sufficrency of carrobaration, and cases 92 If the element of spontaneity exlsr each tulle
37. Texas Penal Code Q 21.01.
crted thereunder.
each outcry is made, then he statements resulting
38. Texal Penal Code 4 Zl.ll(b>.
70. Skiyp v. Srate, 132 Tex. Cr. R 274, 103 S.W. therefore are admissible. See Halq v. Stale 157 Tex.
39. Texal Penal Code $ ZI.II~C).
2d 976 (1937).
Cr. R. 150, 247 S.W. 2d 400 (1912).
40. Texas Penal Code $21.1l(d).
71. nmnom~t v. Stole. 70~cx. Cr. R. 610. 157 93. Retdv. Slate 105 Tex. Cr. R. 147,287 S.W
41. Texas Penal Code g 22.01 I(*).
S.W. 494 (i913); see also, Lee 13. Stale, 145 Ten. 269 (1926) andBruge v. State 73 Twx. Cr. R. 505,
42. Texal hnal Code $22.011(~).
Cr. R. 531, 170 S.W. 2d 481 (1943).
167 S.W. 63 (1914) (statement as origlnal ev~dence);
43. Texal Penal Code $ 22.021.
72. Hill v. Shlte 672 S.W. 2d 302 (Tex. App.- Sce Williants v. Srarc. Tex. Cr. R. 536. I70 S.W
44. Tex. Crim. R. End. Rule 601(a).
Dallas 15th Dist.] 1984).
2d482(1943) sndKenneyv. Slale29S.W. 817 (Cr
45. Tex. Crim. R. Evid. Rule 603 This rule is 73. This type or witness also called an outcry App. 1903) (slatement of incompetent chnld admlssisubject
to the provisions afRule703 relating to opin witness. Hwster v. Stlrre, 572 S.W. 2d 702, (Tex.
ion testimony by expert wmwes
Crim. App. 1978) Cert. den 440 U.S. 961.99 S. Ct
eonrinued o,z page 80
36 VOICE for the Defense I November 1987