### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00132- CR

Jim i Ho fm ann, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 90341 77, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n Jan ua ry 20 04 , a jur

y fo un d Jimi Ho fm ann g uil ty of the a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hild. Tex . Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004-05). B eca use Hofma

nn was HIVpositive, the jury

found that his penis and bodil y fl u i d s we re a dea dly wea pon used in the commission of sex ual assault, an agg ravating c ircumstance under the penal c ode. Id
. § 22.021(a) (2)( A)(iv) . J imi Hoffman appe als the fa ctual suff iciency of th e S tate’s e vidence , contends that his pe nis a

nd bodily fluids do not qua lify under the law a s a dea dly wea pon, and ar g ues that the trial cour

t improperly

dismiss ed a jur or that the S tate challeng ed for cause . We affir m the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.A.K., Pope, Slauson, a nd Slauson’s second son with Ji mi Hofmann have all tested neg ative 1 for HIV. 2 BACK GR OUND A.K. wa s born in Ger

many on Nove m b er 2 2 , 1987, the daug hter of Jimi Hofmann
and Mari a Pop e . A. K. ha d a hal f- br oth e r, C.H ., the so n o f Jimi Ho fm ann and Mo nik a Sla us on . Jimi Hofmann’ s mother, Ruth Hofmann, lived in Texas, and his g randmother , Mary Kea rns, lived in New Jer se y . A t th e be g inn ing

of 20 02 , A .K ., he r mothe r Pop e , a nd Pop e ’s ne w hus ba

nd we re liv ingin Geor g ia; C.H. and his mother S lauson wer e li ving in Ger many ; Ruth Hofmann was l iving in Austi n;
and Jimi H of mann wa s li vin g in M iss ouri wi th his te rm ina lly ill wi fe Pa tr ic ia , w ho m he marr ie d in 1996. I n 1992, J imi Hofmann lear ned that he w as infec ted with Human I mmunodeficienc y Virus (HI V); he te stified that Patricia suff ere d fr o m a n u m ber of

medical pr oblems, but was not HI Vpositive. 1 The e vents at the c enter of this case took place in 2002. That Fe bruar y , A.K. moved to Aus tin to l ive wi th h e r p a te rn a l g ra ndmot he r, Ruth Ho fm ann , in he r mob ile ho me ; in May , Jimi Hofmann a

nd Patricia moved in as well. A.K. te stified that at first, she wa s g lad to see he r father, since prior

contac t had bee n sporadic. She thoug ht i t wa s “cool” that he would shar e alc ohol and
mari hu ana

wi th h e r. She be c a me un c omf or ta ble , th ou g h, a s his hu g s be c a me mor e fr e qu e nt; sh e a lso
no tic e d h im s tari nga t he r w he n s he we nt s wi mmi ngwi th h e r c ou sin s.

At tr ia l, A. K. de sc ri be d a c a mpi ng tr ip wi th h e r f a the r t o L a ke Tr a vis wh e re sh e sa id their first sexual encounte r took place ; J imi Hofmann denied e very thing a bout her story

except that they went ca mping. A.K
. testified that afte r a day of swimming a nd fishing, he r father g ave he r wine3

cooler s and marihua

n a an d b ega n k issing her on the nec k and mouth. I nside their tent, he be g an removing her c lothes. She said that J imi Hofmann told her that he wa s n o t her re al father a nd, beca use they wer e not re lated, any

thing that ha

ppened w ould be okay . She t estified that once she
was naked, her

fathe r g ave he r a “ popper,” which she de scribed a s “a c hemical or something . . . that g ives y ou a hea d rush when y ou inhale it .” She fur ther testified that he aske d if she wa nted to have
se x, and sh e sa id y e s; the y the n h a d unp ro te c te d s e xua l in te rc ours e . T he ne xt day , th e y re tur ne d to Austin; A.K. told no one what happe ned.

Pa tr ic ia die d s ome ti me aft er the c a mpi ngtr ip; a ft e r t hat A .K . b e g an o c c a sio na lly spending the nig ht in J imi Hof mann’s bedroom at Ruth Hof mann’s house. J imi Hofmann does not deny sharinga bed with his daug hter “half a dozen times.” A.K. accuse d J imi Hofmann of having unprotec ted sex with her twice at her g randmother ’s and once more at a Tra vis County

hotel afte r he g ave he r ling erie
.

Th a t O c tob e r, A. K. and

Jimi H of man we nt t o N e w Je rs e y

to v isi t he r p a te rn a l g re a tgrandm ot her, Mary

Ke arn s, and

to s e e A. K. ’s ha lf

-b ro the r C .H . T he fa

mil y ha d p lann e d f

or Jimi Hofmann a

nd his two children to stay with Kear

ns; on their first nig ht, he instead took his son and daug hter to a hote l room. A.K. told the jury that she remembere d the t hree of t hem drinking alcohol in the hotel room and playing a g ame, but c ould not rec all what kind of g ame it was. She de scribed a “flashbac k” memory of all three of t hem having sex , including the positions t hey assumed. She also testified that Ji mi Hofmann ag ain told her that he was not her fathe r. C.H. test i fi ed i n greater de tail about the incident in the Ne w J erse y hotel. He descri b ed how the ga

me they play ed—“tr

uth or dare ”—devolve d into inst ance s of esc alatingOn e no ta ble div e rg e nc e is C.H .’ s des c ri pti on of a se c on d nig ht in a dif fe re nt h ote l r oo m. 2 C.H. testifi ed t h at wh i l e nothi ng sexual happened that night betwe en the thre e of the m, there w as some time in which he wa s locked out of the room and no one answe red w hen he knoc ked. When he wa s able to g o back in, he noticed that A.K.’ s pants wer e off
. 4 se xua lity , in c lud ingA. K. ’s re ve la tio n th a t sh e and he r f a the r h ad “ be e n to g e the r, ” and Jimi Hofmann’ s daringC.H. to ex pose himself, which C.H. did. He said that his fathe r and sister sta rted “makingout” and e ventually asked him more tha

n once to jo in them. C.H. testified that after initially resisting , he did attempt to have se x with A.K., but did not penetrate her . His descr iption
wa s co n s i s t en twi t h A. K. ’s ac co u n to f t h e e v en i n g. 2

J imi Hofmann ac kno wl edg ed takinghis children to a hotel r oom their first nig ht tog e the r i n N e w Je rs e y ; he te sti fi e d th a t th ey wen t th e re be c a us e he did

n’ t w ant t o e xpos e his g randmother

to C.H.’s vulga

r languag e and, beca

use he thoug ht they

would be talking well into the night, his g randmother wouldn’t be able to sle ep. He testified that he boug ht alcohol, but only for him s e l f an d C
. H
. T h e y

d i s c u s s e d

p ar e n t a g e o n c e d

u r i n g t h e e v e n i n g , Ji m i H o f m an ns a i d ; h e tol d A.K. that a D NA test had e stablished that C.H. was J imi Hofmann’ s son, but that no test had ever established that he w as A.K.’ s father
. As they wer e watchingtelevision and talking , J imi Hofmann said that he fe ll asleep, only to be awa

kened l at er b y C.H. and A.K. ha ving se x . He sa

y s he immediately

pulled his daug hter off

his son and put her in the showe r to clea n up. J imi Hofmann, A.K. a

nd C.H. returne d to Kea

rns’s house the nex t morning. A fter their visit with her, A.K. and J imi Hof mann returne d to T exas; C.H. we nt home to Germa ny . The nig ht C.H
. re tur

ne d, he tol d h is g ra

nd pa re nts a bo ut t he Ne w Je rs e y

inc ide nt; tog e the r t

he y tol d h is mother Slauson. I n November , A.K. and he r mother Pope went t o Ger many to celebr ate A.K .’s5

fiftee nth birthday . On that trip, Slauson informed P o p e about the New Jersey incident. Pope confr onted her

daug hter; af

ter in i t i al l y d enying that any thing ha d happene d, A.K. told her mother
a bo ut t he inc ide nts in N e w Je rs e y and on the c a mpi ngtr ip a

nd a bo ut t he se xua l e nc ounte rs a t Ru th Hofmann’ s house and at the hotel in Texas. After they returne d from Ge rmany , A.K. moved ba ck to her mother’ s home in Alabama
.

Pope no t ified the police , including the Travis County Sheriff’ s Offic e. That Dec ember , J imi Hofma

nn w a s arr ested a

nd char g ed with ag g ravated sexual assault for the e vents that took place at the Travis County campg round. He was c onvicted by a jury and sente nced to e ighte en y e ars in p ri so n. He a

pp e a ls that ve rd ic t.
DI SCU SSIO N F actual Suf

fi ciency of the Evidence J imi Hofmann contends that the jur y ’s ver dic t i s c o ntrary

to the overw helming w eig ht of the e vidence and ther efor e cle arly unjust and wrong
. When the re is a challeng e to the sufficie ncy of the e vidence to sustain a criminal conviction, the question prese nted is whether a rational trier of fac t could have fo u n d the essential e lements of the of fense bey ond a re asonable doubt. Zuniga v. Sta te , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). I n a fa ctual suff iciency revie w, all the evide nce is considere d equally , including the testimony of def ense w itnesses and the exis tence of alter native hy potheses. Or on a v . S

tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). Althoug h due defe renc e must be acc orded to the fac t f inder’s deter

minations, pa

rticularly those concern i n g t he weig ht and cr edibility

of the e vidence , the re viewing court may disag ree with the result if nec essar y to preve nt a m an i fest injustice. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). TheI n his brief, Hof mann re fer s us to evidence disclosed by the State of a

previous fa lse outcry 3 by A.K. that wa s never prese nted to the jury
. Appellate c ourts do not consider e vidence not before the jury when conducting a fa ctual suff iciency analy sis. Se e W

as hin gto n v . S

tat e , 127 S.W .3d 197, 2 0 4 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n[ 1 s tDi s t
. ] , 2 0 0 3 , p et
. d i s m ’d
. ) ( ci t i n g J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). 6 evidenc e will be dee med fa ctuall y i n s u fficient to sustain the conviction if the proof of g uilt is too
we a k o r t he c on tr ary e vid e nc e is too str on g to sup po rt a fi nd ing of g uil t beyon d a re a so na ble do ub t. Zuniga , 1 44 S.W. 3d

a t 48 4- 85 ; see J

ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. On a pp e a l, Jimi Ho fmann sp e c if ic a lly dir e c ts o ur

a tte nti on to ( 1) the c on fl ic ts be tw e e n h is t e sti mony

and his c hil dr e n’ s, pa

rt ic ula rl y the dif fe re nt sto ri e s a

bo ut w hat ha

pp e ne d in New Jersey ; (2) the lack of specific ity in A.K.’s desc riptions of the eve nts in Tex as; (3) the State’s failure to present c orrobor ating evidenc e, noting that the linge rie a lleg edly g iven to A.K. wa s never pr od uc e d; a nd (4 ) p os sib le a lte rn a tiv e re a so ns fo r h is c hil dr e n to accuse h im. Ap ply ingthe fa c ts 3 to t he a pp lic a ble sta nd ard of re vie w, we fi nd

no re a so n to dis tur

b th e jur y ’s ve rd ic t. First, conflicts betwee n the t estimony of Ji mi Hofmann, C.H., and A.K . are resolved by an eva luation of cre dibilit y and deme anor, which is be st le ft to the finder of fac t. See J

ohnson , 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d

at 8 (c i t i n g Cai n v . S

tat e , 9 58 S.W. 2d 40 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 )) . A ny inc omp le te ne ss in A.K.’s testimony likewise g oes to he r cre dibilit y and is a matter for the jur

y . The a bsence of the lingeri e i s ex plained by

A.K.’s testimony

that J imi Hofmann kept the g arme nt; other evidenc e
c o r r o b o r a ti n g th e a s s a

u lt in c lu d e d Ch u c k Jo n e s o f

th e T r a v is Co u n ty

Sh e r if f ’ s D e p artme nt confirming that A.K.’s somewhat vag ue desc ription of a ca mpgr ound matched a

particula r location
on L ake Travis. Conjecture about alternative motives of J imi Hofmann’s ac cuser s also g oes to the weig ht and cr edibility

of the evidenc e. We se e no indication that the State’s proof is too we ak or that7

J imi Hofmann’s ev idence too strong to support the jur y ’s ver dict; theref

ore, w e find that the e vidence is f actua lly sufficie nt a

nd overr ule def endant’ s first point of err or. See Zuniga , 144 S.W .3d at 484- 85 ; Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Deadly Weapon

The State c harg ed Ji mi Hofmann with ag g ravated s exual assault, alleging the use of
a de a dly we a po n a s th e a g g ra

vatin g c ir c ums tance. Tex . Pen . Co de Ann. §§ 1. 07 (a )( 17 )( B ) ( Wes t Sup p. 20 04 -0 5) (“ ‘D e a dly we a po n’ me ans . . . a

ny thi ng that in the mann e r of its us e or int e nd e d u se is c a pa ble of c a us ingde a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y .” ), 22 .0 21 (a )( 2) (A )( iv) (“ us e s o r e xhibi ts a d e a d ly
we a po n” ). Jimi H of

mann argue s th a t th e pe nis and bo dil y fl uid s o f a n H I V- po sit ive man a

re le g a lly insufficient to constitute a de adly wea pon under the Texas Pena l Code
. Prosecution witness Robert Ka sp ar e xpla ine d th e natur e of HIV a nd its tr ans mis sio n a

nd lin ke d th e me dic a l f

a c ts t o th e pla in langua g e of

the statut e . Jimi H of

mann ma de no a tte mpt

a t tr ia l, a nd mak es no a tte mpt

no w, to contra dict Kaspa

r’s testim o n y . He a

rg ues instead that the State’ s rea ding of the dea dly

wea pon provision is unreasona

bly broad a nd that the leg islature’s only intent was to punish the use of violence in se x ual assault, not to incre ase c riminal penalties for the victims of a disea se. I n Na jer a v. S

tat e , an HIV-positive def endant c halleng ed his conviction for
a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult , whe re the a g g ra

vatin g c ir c ums tanc e wa s th e us e of “ a de a dly we a po n, to wit: his sex ual org an and bodily fluids[ .]” 955 S.W .2d 698, 700 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). We upheld the conviction, finding among other thing s thatI n a conc urringopinion in Adame , Jud g e Me y e rs de sc ri b e d t h e s pe c tr um o f p ote nti a l de a dly 4 we a po ns : [O] bjects that ar e g ener ally not c onsidered dang erous as such may become so by virtue of the m anner in which they are used i n the offe nse. Tho ma s v . S tat e , 821 S.W. 2d 61 6, 62 0 ( Tex
. Cr im . App . 1 99 1) (a uto mob ile s, te le ph on e c or ds , bathw a te r, fe a the r p ill ow s, g olf c lub s, sh ank s) ; Cru tch er v. S tat e , 969 S.W .2d 54 3, 54 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 19 98 , pe t. re f’ d) (f

la sh lig ht) ; Se lle rs v . S

tat e , 961 S.W .2d 340, 352 (Tex. App.—Hous t o n [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. re f’d) (fire ); Da v is v . S

tat e , 955 S.W .2d 340, 352 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1997, pet. ref’d) (mix ture of se datives); . . . Po we ll v . S tat e , 939 S.W .2d 713, 717 (Tex. App.—El Pa so 19 97 , no pe t.) ( fe e t) ; Mo ra le s v . S tat e , 7 9 2 S. W. 2 d

7 8 9 , 7 9 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 90 , n o p e t.) (h and s and un derp ant s); Cooper v. Sta te , 773 S.W .2d 749, 750 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.) (ha nds); Com pto n v . S tat e , 759 S.W .2d 50 3 , 5 0 4 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no pe t.) (broke n bottle). Ad am e v . S tat e , 69 S.W .3d 58 1 , 5 8 4 (T ex. C rim. App. 2002) (Me y ers, J., concurr ing)
. Se e als o Col e ma n v . S

tat e , 1 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d

6 4 9 , 6 5 5 -5 6 ( T e x . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( C o ch ra n , J
. , co n cu rr i n g) (desc ribing “B ig B ang ” theor y , in w hich the deadly wea pons definition “has f

allen pre y to ‘mission c re e p’ int o a

re a s unf or e se e n an d pro ba

bly un int e nd e d by the L e g isl a tur e [,]” bu t a lso arguin g that it is the leg islature’s plac e to fix any overly broad a pplication of the statute)
. 8 the jury could rationally

conclude bey ond a re asonable doubt that he intentionally or kn ow ing ly us e d his pe nis and bo dil y fl uid s in a mann e r c a

pa ble of c a us ingde a th t o [t he victim] by

infec ting he r with HI V.
Id. at 701. Unlike J imi Hof mann, Najer a did not arg

ue that the bodily fluids of an HI V-infe cted man cannot be a dea dly

wea pon but only

that it should not have be en found to be so in his particular circ umstance. Id. at 700-01. Our positive answer

to that narrow

question impli citly

rec og nized that the fluids of a ma

n infec ted with HI V m ay leg ally be classified as a deadly wea pon. We note that the c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h a s r e c e ntl y fo un d tha t ot he r n on vio le nt i te ms m ay satis fy the de a dly
w e a p o n s ta n d ar d b y th e ma

n n e r in w h ic h th e y ar e u s e d
. See Ad ame v . S tat e , 69 S.W .3d 581, 582 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tu n l o a d e d B B g u nm e td e f

i n i t i o no f d e a d l y w e a p o n )
. In 49

addition, we may only look bey ond the plain, unambig uous meaning of the statute if suc h a re ading would produce absurd r esults. Se e Bo y k in v . S tat e , 818 S.W .2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Ba sed on Ka spar’ s uncontradic ted testimony about the natur e an d t ransmission of HI V, the jury could find fa cts that fit the plain statutory definit i o n o f “deadly

wea pon.” F urthermor e, it is not
a bs ur d f or the S tat e to m e te ou t g re a te r p un ish me nt t o s e xua l pe rp e tr a tor s w ho kn ow ing ly e xpos e the ir vic tim s to thi s d e a dly

vir us . Dir e c t pre c e de nt of thi s Cour t and the c ourt

of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls and a pla in rea ding of

the statute compe l us to deny the sec ond point of err or.
Cha lle nge for Ca use

J uror number

two admitted during voir dire that ther e h ad been an oc curr ence of incest in her f

amily ; sh e s ai d h er feelings a bout the issue would likely weig h ag ainst the defe nse. The State c halleng ed juror numbe r two for cause and the judg e g rante d t h e ch alleng e. B ased on article 35.16 of the c ode of c riminal proce dure, Jimi Hofmann a rg ues that, b eca

use juror numbe r two’s bias wa s ag ainst him, he had the r ight to wa ive the basis of the challeng e for cause and that it was err or for

the judg e not to seat juror number two. Ar

ticle 35.16 l i s t s a n u m b er of g rounds justify ing a

challeng e fo r ca u s e, then adds that c erta in gr ounds may not be waive d but that the
re ma ini ngg ro un ds —in c lud ingbia s o r p re jud ic e —“ may

be wa ive d by

the pa rt y or pa rt ie s in wh os e favor such g rounds of c halleng e exist.” Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 35.16(a) (West 1989). We n e e d n ot a dd

re ss t his iss ue be c a

us e , ev e n if the g ra

nt o f t he State ’s c ha lle ng e to juror number

two was e rror , J imi Hofmann has not demonstrate d any harm. “ [E] rrone ous excusing of a ve niremembe r will call for reve rsal only

if the record shows that the error deprive d the def

endant of a la wfully constituted jury .” J

on es v . S tat e , 9 82 S.W. 2d

38 6, 39 4 ( Te x. Cr im
. Ap p. 19 98 ); seeOur sis ter court in Fort Worth has noted that since Jones , no case has held that a n err oneous 5 g rant of a State’s cha lleng e for ca u s e h as required re versa l. Mo or e v . S tat e , 54 S.W .3d 529, 538 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2001, no pet.). 10 als o Co llu m v . S

tat e , 9 6 S.W. 3d 36 1, 36 6 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 02 , n o p e t.) . T he re is n o r ig ht t o have any particula

r person sit on the jury
. Fo rd v . S tat e , 73 S.W .3d 923, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (c i t i n g Jones , 9 82 S.W. 2d a t 39 3) . Jimi H of

mann po int e d t o no th in g in

the re c or d w hic h w ou ld indicate tha t t h e jury

in this case wa s not lawfully constituted; theref

ore, e ven if the tria l judge ’s dis mis sa l of

jur or numbe r t wo wa s e rr on e ou s, we up ho ld t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t. 5
CO NC LU SION Having overr

uled J imi Hofmann’s three points of error , we a ffirm the judg ment of conviction.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Jul y

8, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh