Jared Lee Newman v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Fort Worth, affirmed Jared Lee Newman’s conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and his 45-year sentence. The court rejected challenges to the jury charge concerning the predicate offenses, applicable mental states, the 30-day duration requirement, and unanimity, as well as a challenge to the display of photographs during voir dire. The opinion concludes that the charge did not contain reversible error and, assuming error concerning the duration language, that Newman failed to show egregious harm.

Holdings

1. The charge was not erroneous because, read as a whole, it defined aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by sexual contact in the abstract sections and necessarily and unambiguously incorporated those definitions into the continuous-sexual-abuse application paragraphs.
2. The charge did not omit the applicable mens rea requirements because its abstract definitions supplied the intentional and knowing mental states and included the mental-state requirements for the predicate offenses.
3. Assuming without deciding that the charge's duration language was erroneous, Newman did not establish egregious harm because the charge as a whole, the evidence, counsel's arguments, and the voir-dire record made clear that two acts had to occur at least thirty days apart.
4. The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that it need not unanimously agree on which specific underlying acts of sexual abuse occurred, so long as it unanimously found that Newman committed two or more acts during a period of at least thirty days.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to display the photographs and question prospective jurors about their views and biases concerning sexual offenders, sexual abuse, victims, and victim-offender relationships.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury charge adequately defined the predicate offenses underlying continuous sexual abuse of a young child, including their elements and mental states.
2. Whether the jury charge improperly linked the indictment's date range to the continuous-sexual-abuse statute's requirement that the abuse occur during a period of at least thirty days.
3. Whether the charge violated the Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement by permitting the jury to convict without unanimously agreeing on the specific predicate acts of sexual abuse.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to display photographs during voir dire and question prospective jurors about biases concerning sexual offenders and abuse victims.

Disposition

affirmed