Sex Crimes Defense in Texas: Legal Definitions & Strategies

In today’s world Internet access has become virtually unlimited. And, with new technology come new problems. These problems have led the Supreme Court to address the challenge modern day Internet access has created for the First Amendment in the landmark case, Packingham v. North Carolina. In Packingham, the Court was asked to determine whether a North Carolina law, which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a social media-networking site, violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

North Carolina Imposed a Social Media Ban for all Registered Sex Offenders

In 2002, Lester Packingham, a 21-year-old student, pled guilty for taking indecent liberties with a child after having sex with a 13-year-old girl. As such, Packingham was required to register as a sex offender. However, in 2010 Packingham posted to his personal Facebook account thanking God after he received a dismissal for a traffic ticket. This post was observed by a police officer and Packingham was ultimately convicted for violating the social media ban for sex offenders. After making it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Packingham’s conviction has now been overturned.

Supreme Court holds that Banning Sex Offenders from Social Media Violates the First Amendment

In overturning Packingham’s case, the Court ruled the North Carolina law to be an impermissible restriction of lawful speech. The Court has consistently held that “[a] fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.” As such, the Court ruled that one of the most fundamental places to exchange views is cyberspace—particularly social media platforms. Social media has evolved and formed a stage for many topics protected by the First Amendment, including human thought. It has evolved so much so that “seven in ten American adults” now use at least one form of social media. Thus, the Court reasoned that while it may have once been difficult to determine which “places” are important for the exchange of ideas, it is now clear.

The Internet allows people access to vast amounts of information, which people need to thrive in modern society. North Carolina prohibited access to this information in an effort to protect children, but they ended up preventing Packingham from gaining access to large amounts of information — information unlikely to further sex crimes. As a result, the Court agreed that sex crimes involving children are repugnant, but it explained that even a valid government interest cannot escape all constitutional protections. The Court further noted that “[e]ven convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.” Thus, the Court determined that North Carolina did not meet its burden to show why the overly broad law was necessary to serve its purpose of protecting children and subsequently declared the law unconstitutional.

For further analysis, see: Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 19, 2017, 1:52 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/opinion-analysis-court-invalidates-ban-social-media-sex-offenders/ 

Sex Offender Registration for the Offense of Indecent Exposure

Most “sex offenses” in Texas are felonies. Most sex offenses involve some sort of physical contact or an indecent act with a minor. However, there is one offense that is classified as a low-level Class B misdemeanor, than can result in sex offender registration.

Indecent Exposure under Section 21.08 of the Texas Penal Code is a Class B misdemeanor, which means it only carries a range of punishment of 0-180 days in county jail and a fine up to $2,000. Indecent Exposure can range from urinating on a public golf course, to having intercourse in a parked car in a public parking lot, to flashing someone. A person convicted or sentenced to Deferred Adjudication for Indecent Exposure does not typically have to register as a sex offender. If the offense is the first time that person has been charged or convicted with Indecent Exposure, then there is no registration requirement.

10-Year Sex Offender Registration for the 2nd Indecent Exposure Conviction

Under Section 62.005(5)(F) of the Texas Penal Code, a person is required to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years for “the second violation of Section 21.08 (Indecent exposure), Penal Code.” However, “if the second violation results in a deferred adjudication,” then the person is not required to register. Because the statute uses the term “violation,” instead of “conviction,” a first charge of Indecent Exposure that results in a deferred adjudication still counts toward the total, even if the defendant ultimately has their case dismissed. So it is imperative that a defense attorney negotiate for a deferred adjudication if their client has a previous conviction or deferred for Indecent Exposure.

See what other crimes require Sex Offender Registration in Texas.

Alcohol and Memory: An Interview with Texas Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Kelly Goodness, Ph.D

As you can probably imagine, many criminal cases involve events that occur when people are intoxicated. This can be especially true for cases involving allegations of sexual offenses. In these alcohol-fueled situations, the issue of memory can play a large part in the case. When we encounter intoxication and memory issues in sexual assault cases, we often employ the assistance of a forensic psychologist to serve as either an expert consultant or expert witness.  One of the best in her field is Dr. Kelly Goodness of Keller, Texas. Dr. Goodness is an expert in alcohol and the brain, including the difference between “pass out” and “blackout” evidence.  She is one of the most highly employed experts for alcohol-related sexual assault cases involving members of the U.S. Military. What follows is an interview that we conducted with Dr. Goodness regarding how alcohol can impact a person’s memory and how it can apply to the sexual assault context.
______________________

Q: Dr. Goodness, How is Alcohol Related to Memory?

A: Alcohol is a potent amnestic agent. Beginning with just one or two drinks, alcohol can produce detectable memory impairments. As the dose increases, so does the potential magnitude of the memory impairments, all the way up to the total inability to recall events during a drinking episode, otherwise known as a blackout.

Q: How does alcohol disrupt memory formation?

A: There are three general processes involved in long-term memory formation, all of which can be impacted by alcohol. First, information must be perceived by one or more of the senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch) to form a sensory memory which can last a few seconds. Second, if concentrated on for more than about eight seconds, sensory memory can be transferred to short-term memory to be retained. Short-term memory can last from seconds to minutes, depending on distractions and ability to rehearse or repeat the information. Third, once some kind of association or sufficient repetition has occurred; information can be consolidated, encoded and transferred from short-term memory into long-term memory which then makes the information available for later recall.

Alcohol, affects all stages of the memory process, but the primary effect is on the transfer of information from short-term to long-term memory storage. The drinker can recall long-term memories that were established before they became intoxicated, but their ability to transfer information into long-term storage can begin to degrade with just one or two drinks. As the dose of alcohol increases, the impairment increases and can culminate in blackouts. When blackouts occur the individual can participate in complex activities and even very emotionally charged events that they later cannot remember.

Q: You mentioned blackouts. What exactly is a blackout?

A: Blackouts are periods of amnesia, caused by excessive consumption of alcohol, during which a person actively engages in behaviors, but the brain’s ability to create memories for what transpires is impaired or non-existent. This leaves holes in a person’s memory that can range from spotty recall for events of the previous night (or drinking episode) to the utter absence of memory for large portions of an evening. The person is still able to carry on conversations, engage in activities and respond to others. They just will not recall some or all of what occurred.

Q: Are there different types of blackouts that a person can experience?

A: Yes. There are En Bloc Blackouts and Fragmentary Blackouts. Blackouts are classified based on the extent of amnesia. The amnesia can be total (“en bloc”) or partial (“fragmentary”).

En Bloc blackouts are classified by the inability to later recall any memories from the intoxication period, even when prompted or given cues.

• No matter what happens, you can never recall it.
• The information was never recorded so recall is not possible.
• Memory of what transpired cannot be restored through hypnosis or any other means because no memory ever truly existed.
• It is difficult to determine the end of this type of blackout as sleep typically occurs before they end.

Think of a loved one you have known who has Alzheimer’s. They may tell you what they had for dinner and five minutes later tell you the exact same thing. They never recorded the event of initially informing you in the first place, so they tell you again. En Bloc blackouts are essentially the same phenomenon – just with a different cause.

Fragmentary blackouts are characterized by the inability to recall some events from an intoxicated period, but not all events.

• The person may be unaware that memories are missing until reminded by others of the existence of these “gaps” in memory.
• Cues can help them remember at least some of what happened because at least some of the information actually was recorded.
• They may have more snapshot type recall and it may not be in sequential order.
• Research indicates fragmentary blackouts are far more common than en bloc blackouts and likely involve alcohol-induced deficits in contextual memory.

Q: Is a blackout different from passing out?

A: Yes, they are different. Although many people refer to “passing out” as going to sleep following ingestion of alcohol, when I say “pass out” in my testimony or describing the research, I am referring to the more formal definition as used in the field of alcohol treatment, in which a pass out is a loss of consciousness due to excessive alcohol intake. By definition, blackout and pass out are mutually exclusive: a blackout is amnesia for the events of any part of a drinking episode, without loss of consciousness. A person in blackout continues to interact and perform complex activities, but has amnesia for these events. A person who is passed out is unconscious and is not having any behavioral experiences to record.

Q: Can blackout and pass out co-occur?

A: Yes. Passing out and blacking out can co-occur. Under the right conditions, a person who consumed alcohol to the point of passing out can be awakened from sleep, engage in activities and have a blackout for that time period.

Q: Can you tell if someone is having a blackout?

A: Determining whether someone is in a blackout state from their behavior alone is next-to impossible. To outside observers, the person may appear to be aware and functioning well enough. During blackouts, people can participate in events ranging from the mundane, like eating food, to the emotionally charged, like fights or serious aggression, with little or no recall. They can drive a car, have a normal conversation, or engage in sexual relations.

Even loved ones are unlikely to know. We know that the wives of alcoholics who are known to be prone to blackouts may only know their husband was blacked out when he does not recall information the next day.

Research designed to bring about blackouts shows that those who are in the midst of an En Bloc blackout can easily recall things that have occurred within the last 2 minutes, yet they cannot recall anything that occurs during the episode prior to this period.

Q: From your knowledge of the research on this topic, what causes blackouts?

A: Blackouts are caused by the selective effects of alcohol on specific brain systems and involve a breakdown in the production and utilization of proteins and neurotransmitters in the brain. Blackouts can occur from rapid consumption of alcohol, such as guzzling, chugging, or shots and are more likely with consumption of hard alcohol or the combination of hard alcohol and beer, versus beer alone.

Q: Is there a typical Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at which a blackout is likely to occur?

A: Blackout BAC’s are individual dependent, but we know the blood-alcohol level is typically very high (above 0.25) when a blackout occurs. Some recent studies indicate .28 to .30 as the median BAC at which blackout is likely to occur. Still, a person can experience a fragmentary blackout with a BAC as low as .08 and an en bloc blackout with a BAC of.14 and above. These can only be used as estimates.

Q: Is intoxication level synonymous with blackouts?

A: No. Intoxication depends not only on the blood alcohol level, but on the rate of increase and tolerance of the individual. One may have a blackout without appearing grossly impaired. One may be drunk with poor judgment and control but not blackout. This is why even eye-witnesses may be (and usually are) unaware that a person is having a blackout.

Q: Are there any known risk factors for blackouts?

A: Yes. The following are risk factors typically associated with alcohol blackouts:

• Drinking on an empty stomach as there is less food to absorb alcohol
• History of serious head injury
• Heavy drinker - but to be sure - a blackout can happen with a single drinking episode and naïve drinkers are not immune
• History of prior alcohol blackouts - past history of blackouts shows the person is vulnerable ad also can produce damage that predisposes the person to future blackouts
• Genetic predisposition
• Alcohol in combination with certain common drugs
• Female

Q: Why are females more vulnerable to memory impairment when drinking?

A: Several reasons.

• Females typically weigh less.
• They also have less water in their bodies, which means that they cannot dilute the alcohol as well, which can result in a higher alcohol levels in the brain.
• Females are more likely to skip meals to save calories when they drink which means there is less food in the stomach to help absorb alcohol.
• Females are more likely to drink beverages that are higher in alcohol concentration such as wine and mixed drinks rather than beer.
• Females have less of an enzyme in the gut that breaks down alcohol before it gets into the body. In fact, studies have shown that it takes much less alcohol for women to experience blackouts than for men.

Q: What does research indicate is the prevalence rate of blackouts?

A: Research shows that 50% of college-age drinkers experience blackouts. Further, one in four college students who drink will experience a blackout in a given year. Although blackouts commonly occur with alcoholics, blackouts also occur in 25% of social drinkers.

Q: How can we know if a blackout is real or feigned?

A: It is hard to know. However, we can look at the known risk factors I previously discussed to determine whether the person was at a legitimate risk of experiencing a blackout.

Q: How does a drinker usually know if they passed out or experienced a blackout?

A: The short answer is they often do not know – and they especially do not know for sure given holes in their memory. Passout or blackout experiences are deduced from the circumstances in which the drinker finds themselves once they rouse, or from the information they are provided by others, or a combination of both. Loosing time through passout or a blackout can be very disturbing to an individual.

Once they wake, begin to sober, or are confronted by information from their surroundings or facts alleged by others; the drinker does what we all do all the time – they try to make sense of their situation by filling in the blanks with what seems logical to them. Their efforts may lead them to inaccurate assumptions and conclusions. This can be particularly true when the drinker has personal (i.e., religious, moral, employment) reasons for being distressed by behaviors such as those involving sexual activity.

Q: Can you explain how you would distinguish between a blackout and a pass out?

A: The fact patterns must be considered. If a person is so intoxicated that they are rendered unconscious, it should take significant time to return to normal cognitive and motor functioning. On the other hand, if a drinker was able to get up, communicate generally coherently, engage in physical movement, but later could not recall doing so, a blackout is much more likely.

Q: In a sexual assault allegation, why is it significant that the complainant might have been in a blackout rather than passed out?

A: Many who have experienced a blackout presume they physically and mentally could not have initiated or participated in sexual activity since they have no memory of doing so and may conceptualize themselves as someone who would never engage in sex in that situation or perhaps even with that person. Moreover, the notion they may have engaged in sex may bring them great cognitive dissonance and angst. As such, they may jump to the conclusion that they were passed out which by definition (unconscious) would mean they could not have participated. In reality, those who are in a blackout can, and do, engage in very complex behaviors including initiating and participating in sexual activity they simply will not recall because the memory traces were not encoded. To be sure, a person in a blackout can continue to perform any number of complex behaviors including driving, making purchases, arguing, criminal activity, and importantly – initiating and engaging in sexual activity - making it sometimes vital for fact finders to understand the psychological science related to blackouts.

Q: Thank you for your time, Dr. Goodness. If someone wanted to retain you to review a sexual assault case, how would they go about doing that?

A: They can either email me at kelly.goodness@drgoodness.com or contact my office at (817) 379-4663 and we can go from there.
______________________

As you can see, alcohol can have a significant impact not only in the decisions that a person makes, but also in the way they remember those decisions. In the sexual assault context, this is particularly important because a complaining witness may engage in (and perhaps even initiate) sexual behavior and not remember what he or she did. Without a memory of the night’s events, the complaining witness might mistakenly believe that they were “passed out” when the sexual behavior occurred and that they were taken advantage of by an opportunistic assailant, when in all reality, they were an active and willing participant. Based on their words and actions, others around them, including their sexual partner, would have no idea that the person was experiencing an en bloc or fragmentary blackout.

Thank you to Dr. Kelly Goodness for her time an expertise in preparing this article. Dr. Goodness’s contact information is provided below:

Kelly R. Goodness, Ph.D
Clinical and Forensic Psychology
121 Olive Street
Keller, Texas 76248
www.drgoodness.com
Office: (817) 379-4663

________________

Brandon Barnett is a criminal defense attorney with Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC in Fort Worth, Texas. He earned his J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law and his LL.M. from George Washington University Law School. He is also a military judge in the Marine Corps Reserve and an adjunct professor at Texas A&M University Law School. He can be reached at barnett@bhwlawfirm.com.

Kelly Goodness, Ph.D. began her career as a clinical psychologist at the maximum security forensic hospital in Vernon, Texas. She entered private practice after learning lessons that could never be taught in a book and achieving recognition for her ability to identify and treat the factors that led individuals to be labeled the most dangerous and violent psychiatric patients in Texas. Dr. Goodness developed a thriving practice as a criminal litigation consultant and expert witness who feels privileged to offer her expertise in jury selection, case theory, expert testimony, and case presentation to the parties in state, federal and military cases worldwide with a special focus on homicide and sexual assault.

Punishment for a Man Convicted of Child Pornography Held Facially Unconstitutional

Ex Parte Lea (Tex. Crim.App. 2016)

What happens when an old criminal law is rendered null and void? Do people convicted of such crimes get to walk free, or, are the convictions upheld in the interests of justice? The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) filed an ex parte case (the court filed the case on its own volition) to determine whether David Lea's punishment for his 2008 child pornography conviction should be set aside on constitutional grounds. The case was met with a dissent by Judge Yeary and the CCA reached a very interesting conclusion.

In 2008, David Lea pled guilty to three counts of possession of child pornography. As a result, he was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment, ten of which were probated by way of community supervision. In 2012, Lea pled guilty to one count of improper visual photography and received a state-jail felony sentence of two years confinement. During sentencing, the State filed a motion to revoke Lea's community supervision from the 2008 conviction because, the State argued, Lea violated the terms of his supervision by committing a new criminal offense. Accordingly, the court revoked Lea' s probation and Lea was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

The Offense of “Improper Photography” Held Unconstitutional

In 2014, the CCA held that the offense of improper photography was "facially unconstitutional" because it infringed upon individuals' First Amendment rights, as propounded by the Constitution of the United States. The main issue? The improper photography statute, once found in Section 21.15(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code was overbroad. Ex Parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Lea Files Writ to Overturn His Conviction for the Stricken Law

Lea filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing that because the offense of improper photography was found unconstitutional, (1) his sentence for improper visual photography should be vacated and (2) his original probation via community supervision should be reinstated.

When an old law is found to be unconstitutional on its face, it is considered to be “void from its inception and should be treated as if it never existed.” Smith v. State, 463 S.W. 3d 890, 895. The due process right to not be convicted under a statute that has been declared void cannot be forfeited. Ex Parte Fournier, 473 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

CCA Overturns Lea’s Prior Conviction and Revocation

When Lea was originally sentenced in 2008, the CCA had not yet determined the fate of the improper photography statute. And while it’s true that courts may revoke community supervision based upon a violation of community supervision conditions—committing any future crimes in this case—the Court finds that Lea’s conviction must be set aside. “The harm here flows from his void conviction, namely, the revocation of his community supervision based solely on an offense that [in theory] never existed.”

Accordingly, the CCA set aside the revocation of Lea’s community supervision, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine reinstatement of his probation. It is important to note that Justice Yeary dissented in this case, referring to Fournier, “I do not believe the applicant should be able to obtain retroactive post-conviction collateral relief based upon an overbroad statute unless he can show that the statute was unconstitutional as to his own conduct. 473 S.W. 3d 789, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Yeary believes that post-conviction relief should only be granted to those defendant-applicants who can show that the conduct in question did not fall within the “plainly legitimate sweep of the overbroad statute.”

In Texas, the law governing sex offender registration contains several provisions that apply specifically to juveniles. This means that sex offender registration works differently in juvenile cases than it does in adult cases. This article will highlight how sex offender registration works in the Texas juvenile justice system and why this is an appropriate approach to take in these cases. This article will not discuss exemptions to the sex offender registration law for certain young adult offenders.

Sex Offender Registration in Juvenile Cases

The two biggest differences between sex offender registration in adult and juvenile cases involves how long the duty to register lasts and exemptions or deferrals for certain juvenile cases.

Expiration of the Duty to Register

Sex offender registration in Texas is contained in Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 62.101, the duty to register in adult cases is for life. However, in juvenile cases, the duty to register ends ten years after the end of the sentence. This ten-year provision also applies to juvenile cases that are certified and transferred to adult court.

Exemptions for Certain Juvenile Cases

According to Section 62.351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, either during or after the dispositional hearing in a case in which a juvenile has been adjudicated for a registrable offense, the court can hold a hearing to determine whether the interests of the public require this particular juvenile to register under Chapter 62. This hearing will only be held if, prior to the hearing, the attorney for the juvenile has filed a motion asking the court to consider exempting him from the registration requirements.

During this hearing, which does not involve a jury, the juvenile must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the protection of the public would not be increased by the registration or that any increase in the protection of the public is clearly outweighed by the anticipated substantial harm to the juvenile and his family caused by registration. After the hearing, the court, under Section 62.352, can make one of several rulings. If the court determines that the juvenile has met his burden of proof, the court must exempt the child from the duty to register. If the juvenile has not met his burden, the judge can either make the child register, make the registration nonpublic, or defer the decision on registration until after the juvenile has completed treatment.

Deferral of the Registration Requirement Certain Juvenile Cases

If the court decides to defer the registration, the juvenile is not required to register during the deferral period. This deferral will automatically turn into an exemption if the juvenile successfully completes treatment, unless the prosecuting attorney files a motion requesting a hearing to reconsider the issue of registration.

Other Scenarios

Under Sections 62.353 and 62.354, juveniles who are already registering under Chapter 62, or those who are required to register due to an out-of-state adjudication, may also petition the court to have their registration either deferred or waived. These provisions require a hearing similar to that discussed above with exemptions.

Tarrant County's Approach to Juvenile Sex Offender Registration

No one can guarantee a particular outcome in a specific case. Every case, and every set of facts, is different and unique. However, many times, in Tarrant County, if a motion is filed by the juvenile’s attorney, the court will consider deferring the registration requirement until the end of probation to see if the juvenile can successfully complete treatment.

Other States' Approaches to Juvenile Sex Offender Registration

It is important to note that not all states have a provision for exempting or deferring a juvenile’s sex offender registration requirements. This means that if a child is adjudicated of a sex offense requiring registration in Texas and then moves out of state, he may be required to register under the new state’s laws.

Why is This an Appropriate Approach to Juvenile Sex Offender Registration?

At first blush, exempting juveniles from registering after they have been adjudicated of a sex offense seems wrong. However, it is important to remember that sex offender registration is a far-reaching consequence that can have profound effects on the life of the person subject to registration. These effects can be even more profound when the person who must register is an 11 or 12-year-old child. It is also important to note that research has shown repeatedly that juveniles who successfully complete treatment are less likely to reoffend than adults. Many juveniles who commit sexual offenses are not pedophiles, but instead, are curious, experimenting, or have not yet developed an acceptable level of impulse control.

While these behaviors are wrong, serious, and need to be addressed, sex offender registration is not the appropriate vehicle to do that. By allowing the exemption or deferral of registration in juvenile cases, Chapter 62 allows judges to evaluate each of these very different cases on their merits and apply the law in the most appropriate way for that case. It also allows juveniles to have a chance at rehabilitation before imposing drastic and long-lasting consequences on them that may devastate their lives before they ever really begin.

Conclusion

Sex offender registration is applied differently in adult cases than it is in juvenile cases. This is due to a few provisions in the law that apply specifically to juveniles. The biggest difference in the two systems is that, in juvenile cases, the judge has discretion over the issue of registration. The court can, if it chooses, defer that registration to see how the juvenile does in treatment. This allows courts to tailor a disposition and consequences to better suit a particular juvenile’s situation while still providing for the protection of the public.

This article is not intended to provide legal advice about any particular case. It is only intended to be a general overview of the sex offender registration law in juvenile cases. For legal advice, please consult an attorney about your case.