### NUM BER 13-06- 0020 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

M A NU EL GON ZA LE Z SOT O, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 98t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas


## D I S S E N T I N G OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a D is se n ti n g O p in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la
T he majority

reverses Sot o’s convictions on the b ases tha t the charge erroneo usly per mitt ed a conv ic ti on on a l ess -t han- unani mous v er dic t on the a lt er nati v e para gra p hs all eg e d i n C o u n t 1 ( a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d ) a n d C o u n t 2 ( i n d e c e n c yw it h a chi ld by co ntac t) and that Soto “w as eg re g iou sl y harmed bythe er ro r” and “[ a]s a resul t of2

the non -una nim ous v erdict error in Coun ts 1 and 2, w e can not dete rmine w het her the jury
errone ously relied o n con duct s u b s u m e d w ithin of f ense s charged in Coun ts 1 and 2 in
conv ic ti ng [Soto ] in C ount 3.” Be caus e I w oul d hol d tha t So to di d notsu ff er eg re g iou s harm and beca use th e record d o es no t show that the jury erroneo usly relied on cond uct subsu me d w ithin of

f ense s ch arged in Coun ts 1 and 2 in convicting Soto in Count 3 , I mu st dis sentfrom t he maj or it y ’s opi nio n. I. Egregi ous Harm By i ss ue fiv e, S oto a rg ues the t ria l co urt er re d by fail ing to ins tr uctthe jurors t hey must re ach a unani mous v er dic t w it h r espec t t o the al ter nati v e parag ra phs of Count1 (agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a child) and Cou nt 2 (inde ce n c y wi t h a c hild by contact). W hen w e revi ew a cha rg e for alleged error, we d ete rmine (1) w het her cha rg e error actua lly
ex is ted, and ( 2) w hether any r esul ti ng ha rm req uires re v ersal

. Cas taneda v. State, 28 S.W .3d 685 , 694 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 0, no pet. ). 1. Requireme nt of

Unanim ous Ve rdict Ver dic t unani mity is re q uired in felony cr imi nal cas es. T EX
. C ON ST . ar t. V, § 13; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t. 36 .2 9( a) ( Ve r no n Su pp
. 20 07 )

. A un an i mo us j uryv erdict “e nsures that the ju ryag re es on th e factual el ements under ly ing an o ff ense, ” re q uir ing “more than mere agreeme nt on a v iolation of a statu te.” Fr

anci s v . St ate, 36 S .W .3d 1 21, 125 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00). Here, t he c our

t i nst ru cte d the j ur

y di sj unct iv ely

on C ounts 1 and 2. The j ur y r etur ned
a s epar ate, g ener al g uilty ver d ict f or C ount 1 and a s epar ate, g ener al g uil ty v er dic t for Cou nt 2. Be caus e eac h act pr osc ri bed by penal co de s ect ion s 2 2.021 (a g g ra v ated sex ual
ass aul t of a c hil d) and 2 1 .1 1 ( ind ecenc y w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t) co nst it utes a s epar ate sta tutor y off ense, the cour

t’ s d is jun cti v e s ubmis si on pr ev ented jur y unanimi ty

for C ountsT he co ur t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y : “ T he p r osecut i on h as t he b ur den ofpr ov i ng t he d ef endan t gui l t y and 1 it m u s t d o s o b y p r o v in g e a c h a n d e v e r y e le m e n t o fth e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, a n d if i t fa i l s to d o s o , y o u m u s t a c q u i t t h e d e fe n d a n t.” 3 1 and 2. See Pi

z zo v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 7 11, 7 18 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ; Vick v. Sta te , 991 S.W .2d 830 , 832 -33 (Te x . Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 9 ). The refore, th e trial court erred in submi tti ng the charg e i n the di sj unct iv e form. See i d. 2. Harm An alysi s W hen , as in this case, an accu sed f ails to obje ct to the ch arge, an ap pellat e cou rt
w il l not reverse, un les s t he er ro r w as so eg re g iou s, and c re ated suc h har m, tha t t he
acc used has not h ad a fair tr ial

. Al m anza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 71 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985)

. Und er

the A l ma n za e gre gious- har m st andard, t he r ecord mustsh ow thata d e f e n d a n t h a s su f

f e re d ac tu a l, rat h e r th a n m e re ly th e o re ti ca l, ha rm f ro m the jur y -i nst ru cti on
e r r o r. Id. a t 174 . Egregious ha rm con sists of errors af

f ecting the v erybasis of the case or that dep riv e the def end ant of a v alua ble r ight, v itally af f ect a def ensive theo ry , or make the c ase for conv ic ti on or punis hment c lea rl y and si g nific antl y

mor e persuas iv e. Sau nde rs
v. State, 817 S.W .2d 688 , 692 (Tex. C ri m
. A p p
. 199 1). Egr egious ha rm is a dif f icult sta ndar d to pr ov e and must be deter mined on a cas e- by -c ase basi s. El li son v. State, 86 S.W .3d 2 26, 2 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. To deter mine w hether a d e f e ndant has susta ined egreg ious ha rm f rom a n instructio n to which he did no t obje ct, an a ppe llate cou rt consid ers: (1) the ent ire charge; (2) the state of the evidence , includin g cont este d issues; ( 3 ) a r g u me n t s o f c o u n s e l ; a n d ( 4 ) a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t i n fo r ma ti on. Hutch v. State, 922 S.W .2d 166 , 171 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96). (i) The Cha rg e The cour t i nst ru cte d the j ur

y on the Stat e’s burden of proof and the req uirement of 1T he c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y : “ Y o u r v e r d i c t m u s t b e u n a n i m o u s
. Un a n i m o u s m e a n s a l l 1 2 o f y ou 2 m ust v ot e, and af t er y ou hav e r eached a unani m ous ve r di ct , t he pr esi di ng j ur or wi l l cer t i f y t her et o by si gni ng th e a p p ro p ria te fo rm a tta c h e d to th i s c h a rg e .” 4 a unani mous v er dic t. 2 (ii) State of the E vidence and Con tes ted Iss ues W ith r espe ct to Coun t 1—aggrav ate d sexual assau lt of a child—the ev iden ce show ed Sot o penet ra ted t he c hil d v ic ti m’s mouth w it h hi s s ex ual org an and that he c aused his s e x u a l o r g a n t o c o n t a c t t h e c h i l d v i c t i m’ s mo u t h

. S o t o s ’ s a c t s o f p u t t i n g his se x ual organ into the child v ictim’s mo uth nece ssarily resulted in conta ct bet w een the child victim’s
mo uth and S oto 's se x ual organ. T here is no ev iden ce of any other act or acts of conta ct bet w een the child victim’s sex ual o rg a n and Soto 's fin ger. T hus, certainly, the jurors unani mousl y

found Sot o g uil ty of bo th penetrati ng the chi ld v ic ti m's mouth w it h hi s s ex ual
or g an and caus ing her

mouth to c ontac t hi s s ex ual org an. W it h r espec t t o C ount 2—i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d by

co ntac t—t he c hil d v ic ti m tes ti fied that Soto made her ru b his sex ual org an. The outc ry w it ness , O ff ic er

Sal dana, tes ti fied th e
c h il d vic t im t o ld h im t h a tS o t o “m a d e h e r r u b [ h is se x u a l o r g a n ] u p a n d d o wn
. ” L o re n za Gue rrero testif ied th e child vi ctim to ld her tha t Soto “w ould have h er h old his priv ate part
. . . w ith he r hand .” T hus, t he evidence showed tha t Sot o cause d the ch ild v ictim to to uch part of his g enita ls. Gue rrero testif ied tha t Sot o tou ched t he ch ild v ictim “[t]o the genita l area. She told me she had been touche d in her g eni tal ar ea.” G uer re ro st ated that “h e w oul d be ru bbi ng his pr iv ate p art to the female’s sex ual org ans” “li ke the v ag ina l ar ea, t he front .” Thus , t he evidence sh owed that Soto touch ed p art of the child victim’s g enita ls. Th ere is no evidenceT he ch i l d v i ct i m t est i f i ed Sot o had t ouched her chest

. However , t hi s t est i m ony i s i nsuff i ci ent t o sho w 3 he t ouched her br east s. I n N e l s o n v . S ta te , 5 05 S

. W

. 2d 5 51 , 5 52 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 1 97 4), the qu es t i on be fore th e c o u rt o f c rim i n a l a p p e a l s w a s w h e th e r th e vic ti m 's te s ti m o n y th a t “h e ru b b e d m y c h e s t” w a s s u ff i c i e n t t o sust ai n t he a l l ega t i on i n t he i ndi ct m ent t hat t he d ef endan t di d “ pl ace h i s han d ag ai nst t he b r east s” of t he v i ct i m
. T he cour t f ound t he ev i dence i nsuff i ci ent because t he def i ni t i on of “ chest ” was pat ent l y br oader t han t he de fi ni t i on of “brea s t ” an d “ i nc l ud es a l arg er are a of t he bo dy t ha n t ha t en c om pa s s ed by t he l att er. ” N elson, 505 S. W

. 2d a t 552

.

R egar di ng Count s 1 and 2, t he p r osecut or st at ed: 4 Keep i n m i nd, l adi es and gent l em en, t hat ei t her one oft hese-
- l et ’ s say y ou f i nd t hat th e r e w a s c o n ta c t t h a t h is s e x u a l o r g a n , h is p e n is , c o n ta c te d t h e m o u th o fth e v ic tim . T h a t’s enoug h f or an aggr av at ed se xual assau l t

. T her e i s t hr ee d i f f er ent m anner and m eans. Y ou don’ t hav e t o ag r ee- - al l of y ou d on’ t hav e t o ag r ee t hat one of t hese happened , as l ong as y ou a l l agr ee t hat ei t her one of t hese happe ned. O k ay
. T he Ju dge t ol d y ou t hat i t has t o be u n a n im o u s , m e a n in g th a t a ll 1 2 o fyo u h a v e to d e c id e g u ilty o r n o t g u ilty. And as far a s m anner and m eans, one per son wi l l say , W el l , y ou know what ? I bel i ev e t he ev i dence showed t hat hi s sexual or gan cont act ed t he m out h of som ebody el se. W el l , y ou say , y ou k now what ? I t hi nk t hat i t not onl y cont act ed b ut he put hi s pen i s i n he r m out h. W el l , t hat ’ s eno ugh f or an aggr av at ed se xual assau l t i n t hat r egar d.

* * * S o i f y o u fin d i n C o u n t 2 h e m a d e h e r t o u c h p a rt o f h i s g e n i ta l s , th e n y o u w i l l a l s o fin d h im gu i l t y o f i nd ec en c y w i t h a ch i l d, or t ha t he t ou c he d h er bre as t s or t ha t sh e t ou c he d a ny pa rt ofhi s gen i t al s, ei t her one of t hese. I fone of y ou sa y s, W el l , y ou k now what ? I t hi nk t he e v i dence shows t hat he t ouched her br east s, but t her e was n o ev i dence t hat he t ouched par t of her geni t al s and t he e v i dence s h o w s th a t a ll o fth e s e h a p p e n e d , b u t ifa n y o n e o fyo u h a v e a q u e s t i o n a s t o w h ic h o n e it was, as l ong as i t was ei t her one of t hese, y ou wi l l f i nd h i m gui l t y of i ndecen cy wi t h a chi l d. 5 to sho w that Soto touch ed th e child vi ctim’s brea sts. 3 There is nothing in the record to sug g estthat a j ur or w oul d bel iev e Sot o w as g uil ty of touchi ng the chi ld v ic ti m's g eni tal s, but h ar bor a reason abl e doubtco ncer nin g w hether he e v er cause d he r to touch his g enita ls. (iii ) Ar gum ents of Cou nsel Dur ing the Stat e 's c lo sing arg ument at the g uil t- inn ocenc e s tag e, t he prosec utor 4 menti oned t he th re e al ter nati v e s tatut or y off enses su b m it te d under C ounts 1 an d 2. How ever, the prose cuto r did not te ll the jury that they ne e d n ot follow the trial court’s unani mous- v er dic t ins tr uct ion

. Mo re ov er , t he al ter nati v e s tatut or y off enses su bmit ted t o6

the j ur y under Cou nts 1 an d 2 w er e notmutual ly ex cl usi v e. See N

go v . St ate, 175 S.W .3d 738, 751- 52 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ( hol din g thatdefendant coul d n o t be g uil ty of both ste ali ng credi t c ar d and re cei v ing st ole n c re ditca rd from t hie f). (iv ) Other

R ele vant

Inf or m ati on Soto' s d efensiv e s tr ateg y w as to un der mine the chi ld v ic ti m's cr edi bil it y by adduc ing
ev ide nce that she and her mother w er e li ars. In other w or ds, Soto' s defensi v e theor y w as t h a tt h e S t a t e h a d fa i l e d t o p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tt h a th e w a s g u i l t y o f any of the o ff enses al leg ed ag ain st him. The j ur y obv iou sl y

r esol v ed th e c re dib il it y i ss ue i n the child v ictim's f avor. I c oncl ude t he tr ial court ’s di sj unct iv e s ubmis si on di d notco nst it ute e rror aff ect ing the v er y bas is of the c ase or

er ro r that depr iv ed Sot o of a v alu abl e r ig ht, v it all y aff ect ed a def ensive theo ry , or ma de the case for conviction or pun ishm ent clearly and sig nif icantly
more persuas iv e. See Saunder s, 817 S. W .2d a t 692

. I w oul d hol d, th e re f o re , that the dis jun cti v e s ubmis si on of

the thr ee dist inc t statu tor y of fenses all eg ed in C ounts 1 an d 2,
w ithou t requiri ng unan imity concerning the d istinct stat uto ry of f ense s, d id not resu lt in eg re g iou s h ar m to S oto. I w oul d ov er ru le is sue fiv e.

II. W hether

the Jur y Er ro neous ly

R eli ed on Con ductSubs umed w it hin Offenses C harg ed i n C ounts 1 an d 2 i n C onv ic ti ng Sot o i n C ount 3 Sot o did no t obje ct to the subm ission of Count 3 to the jury , and he did n ot raise th is is sue on appe al. C ount 3–i ndece ncy w it h a chi ld by

ex posure–i s a separa te offense from ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d ( Cou nt 1) or i ndece ncy

w it h a chi ld by

co ntac t ( Cou nt 2)

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 2 1 .1 1 (a )(2 )(A) ( Ver non 200 3)

. The ev ide nce show ed Sot o exposed his g enita ls to the ch ild v ictim. T he trial cou rt subm itted Count 3 to the jury in a sing le par ag ra ph. Acc or din g ly , the jur y reach ed a unani mous g uil ty v er dic t on Cou nt7

3. T he record do es no t show that the jury erroneo usly relied on cond uct sub sum ed wi thin off enses ch ar g ed i n C ounts 1 an d 2 i n c onv ic ti ng S o to o f i ndece ncy

w it h a c hil d by
ex posure. For

thes e r eason s, I r espec tfull y di ss ent. I w ould af

f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Di ss enti ng Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 9th d ay

of Jul y , 200 8.