Cody Watson v. The State of Texas

Summary

The Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Cody Watson’s conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child and his thirty-year prison sentence. The court rejected challenges concerning jury qualification and the timeliness and sufficiency of Watson’s motion to quash the indictment. The court found error in the designation of an outcry witness but held the error harmless, and concluded that any unobjected-to jury charge error did not cause egregious harm.

Holdings

1. The silent record and Watson's failure to dispute juror qualification did not overcome the presumption that the jury was properly qualified. Even assuming the article 35.12 questions were not asked, any error was statutory rather than constitutional, and Watson failed to show harm because the record did not establish that any juror was unqualified.
2. Watson forfeited his challenge to the alleged defect in the indictment because he filed his motion to quash after the jury was empaneled and trial had commenced. The indictment was constitutionally sufficient because its face identified a felony offense within the district court's jurisdiction.
3. The trial court erred by designating the assistant principal as the article 38.072 outcry witness because the evidence at the hearing showed only a general allusion to sexual abuse and did not establish that A.A. described the offense in a discernible manner. The error was harmless because A.A. later gave substantially similar and more detailed testimony without objection.
4. Assuming without deciding that the abstract definition of sexual contact in the jury charge was erroneous, Watson did not suffer egregious harm. The application paragraph expressly required the jury to find that he touched the genitals of a child younger than fourteen, and the evidence, arguments, and charge as a whole did not demonstrate actual harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court failed to qualify the jury as required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 35.12 and whether any resulting error was constitutional or harmful.
2. Whether Watson preserved a challenge to alleged defects in the indictment by filing his motion to quash after the jury had been empaneled and trial had commenced.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by designating A.A.'s former assistant principal as the article 38.072 outcry witness.
4. Whether the jury charge's use of the general Penal Code definition of sexual contact constituted error causing egregious harm, including in light of the jury-notetaking instruction.

Disposition

affirmed