1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 00 7- CR J E W E L LL YN N MADDE N AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j ury c onvi ct ed A ppe l l antJe w el l Ly nn M add en off ou rc ount s of a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u lto fa c h ild a n d t h r e e c o u n t so fin d e c e n c yw it h a c h ild by con t act . The j ur y f oun d t he enhan cem ental l egat i ons t o be t r ue, an d t he t r i al c o u rtim p o s e d c o n c u r r e n tlif e s e n t e n c e sf o rt h e a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u lt coun t s and s i xt y- year sent ences f or t he i ndecen cy coun t s, t o b e se rved2

c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e s e n t e n c e s f o r t h e a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t s but con cur r ent l y w i t h e ac h ot her . Appel l antbr i ngs t hr ee poi nt s on a ppe al , ar gui ng t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by denyi ng hi s m ot i on f orm i st r i al , by adm i t t i ng hear say t est i m ony, and by vi ol at i ng hi s const i t ut i onal doub l e j eopar dy pr ot e c t i ons. B e c a u s e th e tri a l c o u rt c o m m i tte d n o re v e rs i b l e e rro r, w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. H ea r sa y Test i m ony I n hi s se con d poi nt , A ppe l l antco nt ends t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by adm i t t i ng ou tofcourtst at em ent s t hatt he com pl ai nant m ade t o herphysi cal educati on t eacher , Paul et ha A m os. A m os te sti f i ed t hatt he com pl ai nant had to l d h e r t h a t A p p e l l a n t m a d e h e r w a tch “a d u l t m o v i e s w i th fem a l e s d o i n g n a sty t hi ngs t o m al es and m al es doi ng nast y t hi ngs t o f em al es” and t hathe t ouch ed herpr i vat e a r ea an d m adehert ouc h hi m . The St at e of f er ed t he t es t i m ony not as an outcry st at em entb utas an exci t ed ut t er ance. A m os t est i f i ed t hatot her st ude nt s t ol d he rt hatt he com pl ai nan tw asups etan d t hats he had be en cryi ng. A m os ca l l ed t he com pl ai nan t ove r t o t he si de and as ke d he rw hatw asgoi ng on “because she w as notnor m al . ” A m os t est i f i ed t hatt he com pl ai nant w as “u ps et , cr yi ng, r ubbi ng hereyes . And ot herki dsw er e a r ound herco m f ort i ng her . ” A m os t est i f i ed t hatt h e c o m pl ai nant t ol d hert hatsom et hi ng bad had h a p p e n e d to h e r, so A m o s to l d h e r t o g o i n to A m o s’s o ffi c e . T h e yw e n t i n to2 ... T e x . R . E v i d . 8 0 3 (2 ). 3 ... Mc F a rl a n d v. S tate , 8 4 5 S .W .2 d 8 2 4 , 8 4 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), cert. denied, 5 0 8 U .S . 9 6 3 (1 9 9 3 ).

4 ... Zul i a ni v. S tate , 97 S . W . 3d 589, 595– 96 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2003 ) (c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ). 3 t he of f i ce , an d t he com pl ai nan tbe gan t el l i ng Am ost hat her m ot her ’ s boyf r i end h a d d o n e “ n a s tyth i n g sto h e r.” A n exci t ed ut t er ance i s an except i on t o t he pr ohi bi t i on a g a i n st hear say evi den cean d i s “[ a] s t at em entr el at i ng t o as t art l i ng e ven torco nd i t i on m ade
w hi l e t he dec l ar ant w as unde rt he st r es s ofex ci t em entca us ed by t he eve ntor c o n d i ti o n .” 2Fo ra st at em entt o qua l i f y as an ex ci t ed utt er anc e u nde rr ul e o f evi den ce803( 2) , i tm us tbet he pr oduc tofa st art l i ng e ven t , m adew hi l e t he d e c l a ran t w a s d o m i n a ted b yth e e m o ti o n , e x c i tem e n t, fe a r, o r pa i n o f t h e ev e n t, and t he st at em entm us tha ve r el at ed t o t he ci r cu m st anc esoft he st art l i ng e v e n t. 3I ti s w el l est abl i shed t hat [ t ] he basi s f ort he exci t ed ut t er ance excepti on i s “a psychol ogi cal one , na m el y, t he f ac tt hatw hen a m an i s i n t he i ns t antgr i p of v i o l e n t em o ti o n , e x c i tem e n t or p a i n , h e o rdina ri l yl o se s th e ca p a c i ty fo r ref lec ti onne ce ss ary t o t he f abr i ca t i on ofa f al se hood and t he ‘t r u t h w ill c o m e o u t . ’ ” In o t h e rw o r d s , t h e s t a t e m e n tis t r us t w ort hy b ec aus e i tr epr es ents a n even ts pea ki ng t hr ough t he p e rso n rath e r t h a n the p e rso n sp e a k i n g ab o u t t h e ev e n t. I n det er m i ni ng w het hera hear say st at em enti s adm i ssi bl e as an exc i t ed utt er anc e, t he cou rtm ay con si der t he t i m e e l aps ed and w het hert he st at em entw asi n r es pons e t o a que st i on. 45 ... 1 2 8 S .W .3 d 2 4 7 (T e x . A p p .— T y l e r 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ). 4 I n Hugh es v. S tate , 5 o u r s i s te r c o u rt i n T y l e r rej e c te d th e S ta te ’s content i ons t hata com pl ai nan t’ s stat em ent s pr odu ced as a r esul tofan i nt ervi ew w er e exci t ed ut t er ances:

T h a t so m e o f a d e c l a ran t’ s s tate m e n ts w e re in r e sp o n se to q u e s t io n sd o e sn o tn e c e s s a r ilym a k e t h e m in a d m is s ib le u n d e rt h is e x c e p t io n t o t h e h e a r s a yru le . B u titisa n im p o rt a n tf a c t o rin det er m i ni ng t he spontanei t y oft he st at em ent . [ Th e Hugh esc o u rt expl ai ned t hatbot h] D eputy W el l bor n and M s. Bag ger l y asked C . D . H . [ t he com pl ai nan ti n Hugh es ] q u e s t io n s c a lc u la t e d t o e l i c it in f o r m a t io n a b o u t p a s t e v e n t s a n d a c t iv it ie s . “ R e s p o n s e s t o t h is t ypeofque st i oni ng a r e nor m al l y cons i der ed r ef l ec t i ve nar r at i vesof pas tev ent s”an d he ncel ac ki ng t he sp ont ane i t y r equ i r ed t o be adm i ss i bl e u nde rt hi s exc ept i on.

. . . [T ]h e ru l e re q u i re sa d e te rm i n a ti o n (1 ) w h e th e r C .D .H .’s pr esence w i t h O pal and D eputy W el l bor n at O pal ’ s i nt ervi ew w as an occ ur r enc e s t art l i ng e nough t o pr oduc e a s t at e o fne rvous e x c i tem e n t w h i c h w o u l d ren d e r h e r state m e n ts m a d e d u ri n g tw o l engt hy i nt er r oga t i ons“ sp ont ane ousan d unr ef l ec t i ng”an d, i fs o, ( 2) w het hert he st art l i ng e ven tco nt i nue d t o dom i nat e t he r ef l ec t i ve pow er s of her m i nd dur i ng t hat per i od. S everal cir cum st ances ar gue agai nsti ther e. C .D .H . w a s b rou g h t t o the G rap e l a n d P o l i c e D e p a rt m e n t t o l e n d m o ral s u p p o rtfo r h e r y o u n g e r c o u sin O p a l w h i l e sh e tal k e d to t h e in v e s t ig a t o r s . O p a l a n d C .D .H . h a d re c e n t lyd is c u s s e d t h e ir shar ed hi st or y as vi ct i m s of sexual abuse. C . D . H . had assur ed O pal t hati f she had t o t ur n her f at heri n, she w oul d not be l ef tt o suf f er al one . She k new w hy s he w asgoi ng t o bew i t h O pal , an d s he kne w w hats he w asgoi ng t o he ar . I tw asundo ubt edl y s t r es sf ul b u t sh o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n sta rt l i n g o r su rpri sing . T h e tw o i nt ervi ew s w er e cond uct ed i n t andem . The l ength oft he i nt ervi ew s i s i t se l f a ci r cum st anc e ar gui ng aga i ns t unr ef l ec t i ng spon t ane i t y.6 ... Id. a t253– 54. 5

The r ec or d i nd i ca t est hatbot h gi r l s r em ai ned i n t he r oom t hr oug hou tt he i nt ervi ew s by bot h D eputy W el l bor n and M s. Bagge r l y. The i nve st i gat or s, i n t hei rt es t i m ony, d i d notr ec ount unr ef l ect i ng st at em ent s m ade by t he com pl ai nant. I nst ead, t hey sum m ar i zed w hatt he yd escr i bed as a very det ai l ed nar r at i ve t hat em er ged ove ra pr ot r ac t ed i nt er r oga t i on.

. . . . R espond i ng t o t he i nvest i gat or ’ s quest i ons, C . D . H . nar r at ed a p ai nf ul pe r so nalhi st ory. Butna r r at i ons , es pec i al l y oft hi s l eng t h, a r e in h e r e n t lyre f le c t iv e , n o ts p o n t a n e o u s . A sit sn a m e s t r o n g ly su gge st s, t he exc ept i on f orex ci t ed utt er anc esors pont ane ous d e c l a rati o n s w a s n o t d e v e l o p e d to a l l o w the i n tr o d u c ti o n i n to evi den ceofext end ed nar r at i vesby cr i m e v i ct i m s, an d c ert ai nl y no t s u m m a ri e so f th o s e n a rra ti v e sa si n th e i n s ta n t c a s e . . . . In th i sc a s e , i t i si m p o s s i b l e to c o n c l u d e th a t C .D .H .’s st at em ent s w er e m adew i t ho utoppo rt uni t y f orr ef l ec t i on or d e l i ber at i on. W e decl i ne t o f urt herexpand t he exci t ed ut t er ance except i on t o i ncl ude a sum m ary di st i l l ed f r om a pr o tr a ct ed i nt er r oga t i on. 6 I n t he case bef or e us, A m os t ookt he com pl ai nant i nt o herof f i ce som et i m e aft erD ecem ber12 , 20 06 , an d began t o quest i on her . She asked her
w hatw asgoi ng on . She as ke d he r“ w hatw asna st y go i ng on w i t h her . ” The com pl ai nant r ecoun t ed w hatshe had seen i n t he m ovi es. Th en A m os asked her i fJe nni f erCam p, t he com pl ai nan t ’ s cl as sr oom t ea che r , kn ew . The c om pl ai nan t r epl i ed t hats he had al r ea dy s pok en t o C am p. Then A m osas ke d t he com pl ai nan ti fs he had s pok en w i t h t he cou ns el or , W and a Cam pbe l l . The6

com pl ai nant r epl i ed t hatshe had spoken w i t h t he coun sel oran d t hatC PS w as i nvol ved . T h e re c o rd s h o w st h a t C P S h a d re c e i v e d a re fe rra l fro m th e c o m p l a i n a n t’s s c ho ol , a nd t hep ol i c e r e c e i ve d i to n Dec e m be r 5, 2006. Al s o on Dec e m be r5, t he com pl ai na nt ’ s m ot herw entt o t he pol i cede part m entt o di sc us s t he a c c u s a t i o n . Th e f o l l o w i n g d a y , CP S p e r s o n n e l t o l d Ap p e l l a n t t o m o ve outof t he hous e, an d hel eftt hatda y. He nev erm ove d ba cki n. The com pl ai nan tal soexpl ai ned t o A m ost hatshe had gonet o t he doc t or atCook Chi l dr en ’ s H os pi t al , t hats he had ha d t o l i e o n a t abl e, an d t hatt he doc t orha d ha d t o go bet w ee n he rl egs . The exa m i nat i on t ookpl ac e o n D ecem ber12 , 20 06 . A m os sai d, i n r esponse t o t he pr osecut or ’ s quest i on, t hat
w hen t he com pl ai nan tw asdi sc us si ng t he m ovi es , s he t ol d A m ost hatA ppe l l ant had m ade herdo t hose nast y t hi ngs t o hi m w hen he r m o m w as notathom e. A m oss ai d t he com pl ai nan tw as up set beca us e h erbr ot her s w er e u ps etan d becau se she cou l d not t el l anyon e about w hathad happ ened— A ppel l anthad t ol d he rt hathew oul d hurthe ran d he rf am i l y i fs he t ol d. Th e ci r cum st ances i n w hi ch t he com pl ai nant t ol d herst or y, as pr ovi ded i n t he r ec or d, i n no w ay i ndi ca t e t hatshe had l os t" t he ca pac i t y f orr ef l ec t i on7 ... McFar l and, 845 S. W . 2d a t846. 8 ... S e eL e da yv. S tate , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); Johnson v. S tate , 8 0 3 S .W .2 d 2 7 2 , 2 9 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ), cert. denied, 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 5 9 (1 9 9 1 ), o verrule d o n o th er groun ds by Heitm a n v. S tate , 815 S .W .2 d 6 8 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); s ee al so Broo ks v. S tate , 990 S. W . 2d 2 7 8 , 2 8 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 2 8 U .S . 9 5 6 (1 9 9 9 ); Ha rr i s v. S tate , 7 n e c e s s a ryto th e fa b ri c a ti o n o f a fa l s e h o o d ." 7I nde ed, A m os ’ s t ak i ng t he com pl ai nan ti nt o he rof f i cean d a sk i ng he rt o e xpl ai n w hatha d oc cur r ed and how she f el tabout i tpr esuppo se s t hatt he com pl ai nant w oul d r ef l ecton her ans w er s bef or e s pea ki ng. A d d i ti o n a ll y , th e rec o rd s h o w s th a t A m o s d i d n o t be g i n h e r se p a rate i nt ervi ew w i t h t he com pl ai nan tunti l a f t ert he com pl ai nan tha d di sc us se d t he event s w i t h hert eacher , herc o u n se l or , r epr esent at i ves ofC PS , and m edi cal per sonnel atC ook C hi l dr en’ s H ospi t al ; h ad been exam i ned by a doctor ; and had part i ci pat ed i n a t aped C PS i nt ervi ew . Thi s w asa st at em entm adeab outan ups ett i ng s er i esofev ent s, butt he st at em ent w as not an exci t ed ut t er ance as cont em pl at ed by t he r ul e. The t r i al cou rter r ed by o ver r ul i ng Appel l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t o t he t es t i m ony. The s am e e vi den ce , how eve r , w asad m i t t ed el se w her e. Bot h t he com pl ai nan tan d t he out cry w i t nes s, Cam p, ha d t es t i f i ed i n de t ai l a bo utt he sa m e m att er s, r end er i ng t he er r ori n i m pr ope r l y a dm i t t i ng t he hea r sa y t es t i m ony ofA m os har m l ess. 8W eo v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s s e c o n d p o i n t.1 3 3 S .W .3 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 2

– 7 3 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 4 , p e t. re f’d ). 9 ... 8 2 6 S .W .2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). 8 D eni alofM i st r i al I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , A ppe l l antcom pl ai nst hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by d eny i ng hi s m ot i on f orm i st r i al , i nf r i ng i ng o n hi s r i ght s t o duepr oce ssan d t he pr es um pt i on ofi nnoc enc e. Af t era pol i ceof f i ce rha d a l r ea dy t es t i f i ed w i t hout o bj e c ti o n th a t A p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n a rre s te d , th e S ta tea s k e d th e c o m p l a i n a n t’s m ot heri fs he had vi si t ed A ppe l l ant i n j ai l . A ppe l l ant obj ec t ed t hat evi den ceof i nca r ce r at i on w asnotr el eva nta nd i nj ect ed f ac t s t hatha d no pr oba t i ve val ue and t hatany pr obati ve va l u e w as subst ant i al l y outw ei ghed by t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ec t . He al so r ai se d a r ul e 404( b) obj ec t i on. T h e p ro s e c u to r i m m e d i a te l yw i th d re w t h e q u e s ti o n . T h e tri a l c o u rt su st ai ned A ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on a nd i nst r uc t ed t he j ury t o di sr ega r d t he q u e s t io n . T h e t r ia l c o u rt d e n ie d A p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n f o ra m is t r ia l. O n a p p e a l, A ppel l antar gues t hatt he pr osecut or ’ s i nf o rm i n g t he j ur y t hatA ppel l anthad bee n i nca r ce r at ed i nva dest he pr es um pt i on ofi nnoc enc e, r el yi ng on Randl e v. S tate . 9Appel l an te quat esi nf or m i ng t he j ury ofhi s i nca r ce r at i on w i t h f or ci ng hi m t o st and t r i al bef or e t he j ur y i n j ai l cl ot hes. W h e n the tr i a l co u rtsu sta i n s a n o bj e c ti o n an d i n stru c ts th e juryto di sr egar d but deni es a def endan t ’ s m ot i on f ora m i st r i al , t he i ssue i s w het her10 ... Ha wki n s v. S tate , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 2 , 7 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 11 ... Id. ; see al

so Si mpson v. State, 1 1 9 S . W . 3 d 2 6 2 , 2 7 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 2 U .S . 9 0 5 (2 0 0 4 ).

12 ... Hawki

ns, 1 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 7 ; Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249, 259 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ). 9 t h e t r ia l c o u rta b u s e d it sd is c r e t io n b yd e n y in g t h e m is t r ia l. 10O n l yi n e x t r e me c ir c u m s t a n c e s , w h e n t h e p r eju d ic e c a u s e d b yt h e im p r o p e ra r g u m e n tis i ncur abl e, t hati s, “so pr ej udi ci al t hatexpend i t ur e off urt hert i m e and expen se w oul d bew as t ef ul an d f ut i l e, ” w i l l a m i st r i al ber equ i r ed. 11 I n de t er m i ni ng w het hert he t r i al court abused i t s di scr et i on i n deny i ng t he m i st r i al , w e bal ance t hr e e f a c t o r s : ( 1 ) t h e s e v e r i t yo ft h e mi s c o n d u c to rp r ej u d i c i a l e f f e c t , ( 2) c u rati v e m e a su res , a n d (3 ) th e c e rt a i n ty o f c o n v i c ti o n a b se n t t h e m i sc o n d u c t. 12 Th e pr osecut ori m m edi at el y w i t hdr ew the qu est i on. The t r i al courtt ook qu i ck a c ti o n a n d s u s ta i n e d t h e o bj e c ti o n a n d in s tru c te d th e j u ryto d i s re g a rd . T h e re i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatt he t r i al court ’ s i nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d w as i nef f ec t i ve. The que st i on w as no ts o pr ej udi ci alan d i nf l am m at ory t hatt he i n stru c ti o n co u l d n o t cu re th e h a rm . A d d i ti o n a l l y , a s th e S tate p o i n ts o u t, s im ila r e v id e n c e w a s a d m it t e d e ls e w h e r e w it h o u t o bje c t io n . W e t h e r e f o r e h o ld th a t th e t ri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yo v e rru l i n g A p p e l l a n t’sm o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l . W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t.13 ... V i ckv. S tate , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). 14 ... Pa tterso nv. S tate , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d 8 8 , 9 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 15 ... 9 8 2 S .W .2 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 10 D oubl e J eop ardy I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , A ppel l ant contends t hat hi s convi ct i ons f ori ndecen cy vi ol at e hi s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om doub l e j eopar dy. A ppel l an tpoi nt s outt hat al t hou gh a p er son w ho com m i t s m or e t han on e sexual assaul tagai nstt he sam e com pl ai nan tm ay be con vi ct ed and puni sh ed f orea ch se par at e a ct , ev en i ft he ac t s w er e c om m i t t ed i n c l os e t em por alpr oxi m i t y, 13t he St at e m ay noten gag e i n “st op- act i on” pr osecut i ons. 14 Th e quest i on, t hen, i s w het herA ppel l antw as pr osecut ed f orseven di st i nctof f enses, orf our of f enses and t hr ee l esser i ncl uded of f enses oft hose sa m e o f f ens es . Rel yi ng on O ch o av. S tate , 15i n w hi ch t he Texa s C ourtof C r i m i n a l A p p eal s hel d t hati ndecen cy w i t h a chi l d can be a l esseri ncl uded of f ense ofaggr avat ed sexual a ss aul t , depend i ng on t he f act s oft he case, A p p e lla n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n v ic t io n s f o r a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u ltc h a r g e d in cou nt s onet hr ough f ouran d t he con vi ct i on s f or i ndece ncyw i t h a ch i l d by c o n tac t ch a rge d in c o u n ts fi v e , six, an d se v e n w e re b a se d o n the sa m e ac ts and t hus vi ol at ed dou bl e j eopar dy pr ot ect i ons.16 ... Blockbur ger v. United S tates , 284 U. S. 299, 304, 52 S . Ct . 180, 1 8 2 (1 9 3 2 ); se e United Statesv. Di xon , 509 U. S. 688, 696, 113 S. Ct . 2849 , 2 8 5 6 (1 9 9 3 ); Pa rr

i shv. S tate , 86 9 S . W . 2d 352, 353– 55 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 4 ).

17 ... Bi g o nv. S tate , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 11 To det er m i ne w het herbot h of f ens esar e t he sa m e, w e m us tex am i ne t he el em ent s of t he appl i cabl e st at ut es t o det er m i ne w het hereach st at ut e “r equi r es p ro o f o f a n a d d i ti o n a l fa c t w h i c h th e o th e r d o e sn o t.” 16 W he n r es ol vi ng w het hert w o of f ens esar e t he sa m e f ordoub l e j eop ar dy p ur pos es , w e f ocu s on th e elem e n ts a l l e g e d i n the ch a rging i n stru m e n t. 17 T h e i n d i c tm e n t al l e g e s th a t al l th e a g g rav a ted se x u a l as sa u l t co u n ts o c c u rr ed on or abou tD ecem ber5, 20 06 , and t hatal l t he i ndecen cy coun ts occur r ed on or abou tD ecem ber1 , 2 00 6. Th e com pl ai nant t est i f i ed t o r epeat ed sexual act s agai nstherand expl ai ned t hat t hey happened al m ost ever y day t hat herm om w entt o w or k. She al so t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l antpl aced hi s peni s i n her m outh e v e ry ti m e he “m essed w i t h” her . She h ad t o hol d hi s peni s w i t h her hand orhands w hi l e i tw as i n herm outh. The com pl ai nant t est i f i ed t hat A ppel l antpenet r at ed herf em al e sexual or gan w i t h hi s f i ngerand t ouch ed her gen i t al s and anusw i t h hi s pen i s. H e cont i nue d t o s exu al l y a ss aul the runt i l t he day befor e C PS cam e t o herhouse.12

A l t hough Ca m p a nd A m os m en t i on ed t ou ch i ng , t he y w ere i nd efi ni t e about
w hatA ppel l antt ouch ed t he com pl ai na n t w i t h and r eport ed onl y t hathe had t ouch ed herpr i vat e ar ea. Th e i ndecen cy of f enses and t he aggr avat ed sexual assaul t s occur r ed over a l ong p er i od oft i m e o n m ul t i pl e d ays , butt her e i s no e vi den cebe yond sp ec ul at i on t hatA ppe l l antc om m i t t ed se par at e a nd di st i nctof f ens esof i ndecen cy. The S t at e has pr ovi d e d u s a hel pf ul chart , w hi ch w e r epr odu ce b e l o w : C o u n t1 — A ggr avat ed S exual A s s a u lt C . G . t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antor der ed her t o ope n he rl egsan d

t h e n p u th i sp e n i si n h e rp r i v a t e p a rt . R R 4: 2 6 . T h i sh u rtC. G. v e ry b a d l y . R R 4 :2 7 . C .G . tes ti fi e d th a t A p p e l l a n t to l d h e r t o c h e c kt o s e e ifs h e w a sb l e e d in g . . . . R R 4 :2 7 . C .G . t o ld [ C ryst al U t l ey, t he nur se pr act i t i o n e r w ho exam i ned herat C ook C hi l dr en' s H ospi t al ] t hatA ppel l ant ’ s pen i s cont act ed her va gi na . RR 5 : 78. C o u n t2 — A ggr avat ed S exual A s s a u lt O nce Ap p e l l a n td e t e r m i n e d t h a ts h e w a sn o tb l e e d i n g,

A ppel l antor der ed C . G . t o f l i p overand l ay on hersto m a ch ag ai n. R R 4: 27. Appel l ants t ood u p a nd pl ac ed hi s pen i s on herbehi nd. RR 4: 28 . A ppel l antw oul d pl ace h i s pen i s on her b o t t o m a n d in h e rp r iv a t e s . R R 4 :3 1 . C .G . t e s t if ie d t h a tt h is m a deh e rp r i va t e b ur n w he n s heu r i na t e d. RR 4 : 31. C o u n t3 — A ggr avat ed S exual A s s a u lt C . G . t ol d A m o s t hatA ppel l antw as m aki ng herw at ch

por nog r aphi c m ovi es and t hatA p p el l antm ade herdo t hose na s t y t hi ng st o [ hi m ] w he n he rm om w a snoth om e . RR 4 : 87. Ap p e l l a n two u l d t o u c h h e ri n h e rp r i v a t e a r e a a n d ma d e C. G. t ou c h hi m o n hi sp r i va t e s . RR 4 : 88.13

C o u n t4 — A ggr avat ed S exual A s s a u lt C .G . tes ti fi e d tha t A p p e l l a n t plac e d h i s p e n i s i n C .G .’ s m o u th

and pu shed herhead back and f ort h. R R 4 : 25 –2 6. C . G . al so t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antputhi s pen i s i n he rm out h a nd “ pee d” i n herm outh. RR 4: 30 . C .G . sw al l ow ed i tone t i m e and her s t om a c h be ga n t o hu rt . RR 4 : 30–31 . C o u n t5 — I ndecen cy w it h aC h ild C am p t est i f i ed t hatC . G . t ol d hert hatA ppel l antw oul d t ouch

herdow n t her e— w hi ch C a m p t ook t o m ean i n a sexual m a n n e r. R R 4 :6 9

– 7 0 . C .G . te sti fi e d tha t i n ad d i ti o n to A p p e lla n t p la c in g h is p e n is in h e r p r iv a t e s , A p p e lla n tw o u ld i ns e rth i sf i ng e ri n he rp r i va t e s . RR 4 : 38–39 . C o u n t6 — I ndecen cy w it h aC h ild C. G. t e s t i f i e d t ha tApp e l l a ntw ou l d t ou c h he ri n he rb e hi nd . RR

4: 37. C o u n t7 — I ndecen cy w it h aC h ild C. G. t e s t i f i e d t ha ts hew ou l d ho l d Appe l l a nt ’ sp e ni s . RR 4 : 38.

C .G . t e s t if ie d t h a t“ (w )h e n e v e rh e p u titin ( m y ) m o u t h , h e t o ld m e I h a v e t o h o ld it .” R R 4 :3 8 . C .G . s a id t h a ts h e w o u ld h o ld i tw i t h he rh a nd s . RR 4 : 38. W e hol d t hatt he evi dence do es notshow t hatt he f ouraggr avat ed sexual as sa ul tof f ens esal l ege d i n t he i ndi ct m entar e t ot al l y s epa r at e a nd a partf r om t he t hr eei nde ce ncyby con t ac tch ar gesal l ege d i n t he i ndi ct m ent . The que st i on ar i ses, t hen, w het herth e S t at e m ay pl ead t he l esseri ncl uded of f enses w hen t he evi den ces how s r epe at ed com m i ss i on oft he gr ea t erof f ens es . Al t hough t he evi dence show s onl y th e g reat erof f enses, occur r i ng r epeat edl y, t he gr eat er of f enses w er e descr i bed byt he com pl ai nant i n det ai l t hati ncl uded th e l esser of f ens esofi nde ce ncy . B ase d on ourr evi ew oft he r ec or d, w e h ol d t hatt he rec o rd s u ffi c i e n tl yd e sc ri b e s m o re th a n se v e n se p a rate an d d i sc re te e v e n ts du r i ng w hi ch A pp el l an tsex ua l l y a ssa ul t ed t he co m pl ai na nt. W e al so r ec og ni ze18 ... S eeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 2 1 .0 1

– .3 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 9 ). 19 ... S e eMe dc a lf v. S tate , N o. 02

- 07

- 00 36 6- C R , 20 08 W L 49 26 02 5, at *2– 3 ( Tex. A pp. — Fo rtW ort h Nov. 13, 2008 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , not d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); Bo tten fi eld v. S tate , 77 S. W . 3d 349 , 3 58 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ), cert. denied, 5 3 9 U .S . 9 1 6 (2 0 0 3 ); Hu tch i n s v. S tate , 992 S . W . 2d 629, 633 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 1999, pe t . r ef ’ d, u n ti m e l yfi l e d ). 14 t hatnot hi ng i n t he st at ut esgov er ni ng i ndi ct m ent s pr eve nt s t he St at e f r om i ndi ct i ng a per son f ora l esserof f ense t han on e support ed by t he pro o f. 18 Fi nal l y, w e hol d t hatbecause t he evi dence r ef l ect s m or e t han seven i nst ances ofaggr avat ed se x ual assaul tt hati ncl uded t he el em ent s oft he l esserof f ense ofi nde ce ncy , t her e w asno d oubl e j eop ar dy v i ol at i on. 19W e t h e r e f o r e o v e r r u le A p p e l l a n t’ s th i rd p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’s th re e p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Se pt e m be r3, 2009