Court Opinion

ID: 9949618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 13:10:36.87155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:19.271107
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                        No. 04-22-00525-CR

                                      Jose Alfonso JIMENEZ,
                                              Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                    From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
                                        Trial Court No. 8736
                            Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:      Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting:         Beth Watkins, Justice
                 Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                 Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2024

AFFIRMED

           A jury convicted Jose Alfonso Jimenez of indecency with a child-contact. On appeal,

Jimenez asserts four issues: (1) jury charge error in failing to limit the definition of “intentionally”

to nature of the conduct; (2) jury charge error in failing to limit the definition of “knowingly” to

nature of the conduct; (3) error by submitting a lesser-included offense of indecency with a child;

and (4) insufficiency of the evidence to convict on the lesser-included offense. We affirm.
                                                                                                        04-22-00525-CR

                                                    BACKGROUND

           On February 8, 2022, Jimenez was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of two children,

A.J. and B.O., 1 younger than fourteen years of age. Jimenez’s acts—namely, touching the

children’s genitals—were alleged to have occurred between August 1, 2012 and August 7, 2016.

Jimenez pled not guilty, and a four-day jury trial commenced on July 25, 2022. On July 27, 2022,

the jury found Jimenez guilty of the lesser offense of indecency with a child against B.O, and on

July 28, 2022, the jury assessed punishment at seventeen years’ confinement and imposed a

$10,000 fine. This appeal followed.

                                      UNPRESERVED JURY CHARGE ERROR

           In his first two issues, Jimenez asserts the trial court erroneously failed to limit the

definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” to the nature of the conduct at issue when it charged

the jury.

Standard of Review

           Our review begins with a determination of whether error exists in the charge and, if so,

whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to compel reversal. Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738,

743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The degree of harm necessary for reversal depends on whether the

defendant preserved the error by objection. Id. Where, as here, the defendant did not object to the

complained-over issue in the charge, we will not reverse for jury charge error unless the record

shows “egregious harm” to the defendant. Id.

           “Egregious harm” results from error affecting the very basis of the case, depriving the

defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affecting a defensive theory. Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d

137, 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “Reversal is not required unless the error is so egregious that

1
    Because the complainants were minors at the time of the alleged offenses, we use initials to protect their privacy.

                                                           -2-
                                                                                          04-22-00525-CR

the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1984).

Applicable Law and Analysis

        Jimenez argues “the definitions of intentional[ly] and knowingly should have been limited

to the nature of conduct as applicable to the indecency with a child statute.” According to Jimenez,

the trial court improperly instructed the jury with respect to the definitions of intentionally and

knowingly. He asserts the definitions apply to result of conduct offenses and not nature of conduct

offenses, and indecency with a child is a nature of conduct offense. In the abstract portion of the

jury charge, the trial court instructed:

                A person acts “intentionally”, or with intent, with respect to a result
                of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to cause
                the result.

                A person acts “knowingly”, or with knowledge, with respect to a
                result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably
                certain to cause the result.

According to Jimenez, these definitions caused egregious harm because the definitions did not

correctly describe his culpable mental state—Jimenez’s alleged intent to arouse or gratify his

sexual desire—thereby lessening the State’s burden of proof. Without admitting error, the State

argues the record does not reveal egregious harm to Jimenez, emphasizing that the only issue in

contention with respect to the convicted offense was B.O.’s credibility, not Jimenez’s intent.

        B.O. testified as follows: Jimenez is A.J.’s (her older sister) father, and she is unrelated to

him. When B.O. was five years old, she attended a birthday party at Jimenez’s house with A.J.

During the party, Jimenez led her by the hand to his room, where the two were alone. Jimenez

offered her a toy Rubik’s cube in exchange for letting him touch her a certain number of times.

After the two agreed on the number of allowed touches, Jimenez unbuttoned her pants, unzipped

                                                 -3-
                                                                                       04-22-00525-CR

her zipper, pulled down her underwear, and touched her vagina with his hand. After Jimenez

touched B.O. the agreed-upon number of times, he stopped and gave B.O. the Rubik’s cube.

        According to the State, B.O.’s testimony is sufficient to establish the requisite intent; that

is, the jury could have reasonably inferred Jimenez’s specific intent to arouse or gratify his sexual

desire. See McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The State also points

out that there was no evidence suggesting Jimenez did not act with the intent to arouse or gratify

his sexual desire—his defense at trial was that the incident did not occur. The jury is the sole judge

of B.O.’s credibility, and the jury is entitled to believe or disbelieve B.O.’s testimony. Jones v.

State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). We agree with the State that if the

jury believed B.O.’s testimony, it could have rationally inferred Jimenez’s specific intent to arouse

or gratify his sexual desire.

        Moreover, in examining the charge for possible error, we “must examine the charge as a

whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361,

366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The application paragraph is that portion of the jury charge that

applies the pertinent penal law, abstract definitions, and general legal principles to the particular

facts and the indictment allegations. Id. Because that paragraph specifies the factual circumstances

under which the jury should convict or acquit, it is the “heart and soul” of the jury charge. Id. at

367.

        Jimenez complains over the definitions provided in the abstract portion of the charge;

however, the application paragraphs correctly recite the specific intent required to find Jimenez

guilty of the lesser offense:

                [I]f you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on
                or about the about the [sic] 1st day of August, 2012 through the 7th
                day of August, 2016, in Kendall County, Texas, the Defendant, Jose
                Jimenez, did then and there, intentionally or knowingly engage in
                sexual contact with B.O., a person younger than seventeen (17)

                                                 -4-
                                                                                      04-22-00525-CR

               years of age, by touching the genitals of B.O., with the intent to
               arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the Defendant, then you will
               find the Defendant Guilty of the lesser offense of Indecency with a
               Child by Contact. [Emphasis added.]

Notwithstanding the definitions provided in the abstract portion of the charge, the “application

section of the charge clearly directed the jury to the appropriate” elements of the offense. Campbell

v. State, 664 S.W.3d 240, 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022).

       Reviewing the record and the charge as a whole, we cannot say that Jimenez was

egregiously harmed by the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” in the abstract portion

of the charge. Cf. Turner v. State, 573 S.W.3d 455, 463 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, no pet.) (“In

the context of the entirety of the jury charge, the erroneous wording of the application paragraph

is not so outrageous as to be considered egregious in and of itself.”). We accordingly overrule

Jimenez’s first and second issues.

                 INCLUSION OF LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE IN JURY CHARGE

       In his third issue, Jimenez asserts the trial court erroneously charged the jury with the

lesser-included offense of indecency with a child.

Standard of Review

       Our review begins with a determination of whether error exists in the charge and, if so,

whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to compel reversal. Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743.

Applicable Law and Analysis

       The parties do not dispute that indecency with a child is a lesser-included offense of

continuous sexual abuse of a child. Jimenez nevertheless complains the offense should not have

been instructed “because the record does not contain some evidence permitting a jury rationally to

find that if [Jimenez] was guilty, he was guilty only of the lesser-included offense of Indecency

with a Child involving B.O.”

                                                -5-
                                                                                         04-22-00525-CR

         Jimenez’s argument is a restatement of the second prong of the Royster-Rousseau test for

determining when a trial judge should submit to the jury a lesser-included offense. Grey v. State,

298 S.W.3d 644, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In Rousseau, the Court of Criminal Appeals

articulated the two-prong test “to be met before a jury charge on a lesser included offense must be

given: first, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish

the offense charged, and second, some evidence must exist in the record that if the defendant is

guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.” Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1993).

         In Grey, the Court of Criminal Appeals expressly overruled authority requiring the State

to prove the second prong when requesting a trial court to instruct on a lesser-included offense.

298 S.W.3d at 645 (overruling Arevalo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).

Therefore, the State need only show the offense is, in fact, a lesser-included offense. See Royster

v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (setting forth two-prong test); Grey, 298

S.W.3d at 645 (holding “the State is not bound by the second prong of the Royster-Rousseau test”).

         Here, the State requested the lesser-included-offense instruction, and it is undisputed that

indecency with a child is a lesser-included offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Therefore,

the trial court did not err in charging the lesser-included offense. Having found no error, we need

not address harm. See Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 738; TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We overrule Jimenez’s third

issue.

                                   SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

         In his fourth issue, Jimenez asserts the evidence is insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.

Standard of Review

         In a sufficiency claim, our role is “restricted to guarding against the rare occurrence when

a factfinder does not act rationally.” Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

                                                  -6-
                                                                                     04-22-00525-CR

We assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307, 318–19 (1979)). The essential elements of the offense are defined by the hypothetically

correct jury charge for the case. Ramos v. State, 407 S.W.3d 265, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Conflicting inferences are resolved in favor of the verdict. Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally, and circumstantial

evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007).

Applicable Law

       As applicable here, a person commits the offense of indecency with a child by contact if,

with a child younger than 17 years of age, the person engages in sexual contact with the child.

TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(1). As applicable here, “sexual contact” means any touching by a

person, including touching through clothing, of the genitals of a child if committed with the intent

to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Id. § 21.11(c)(1).

Analysis

       As discussed above, B.O. testified as follows: When B.O. was five years old, she attended

a birthday party at Jimenez’s house with A.J. During the party, Jimenez led her by the hand to his

room, where the two were alone. Jimenez offered her a toy Rubik’s cube in exchange for letting

him touch her a certain number of times. After the two agreed on the number of allowed touches,

Jimenez unbuttoned her pants, unzipped her zipper, pulled down her underwear, and touched her

vagina with his hand. After Jimenez touched B.O. the agreed-upon number of times, he stopped

and gave B.O. the Rubik’s cube.

                                                 -7-
                                                                                       04-22-00525-CR

       However, Jimenez points out B.O. also testified that she recalls going to Jimenez’s house

before that. He further directs us to conflicting testimony by B.O.’s mother that B.O. never went

to Jimenez’s house other than that one time. Jimenez’s sister also testified that B.O. never attended

another party at Jimenez’s house. Jimenez introduced into evidence two photographs sponsored

by Jimenez’s sister allegedly showing B.O. after holding a party bag in which a Rubik’s cube is

neither visible in B.O.’s hand or through the transparent bag.

       According to Jimenez, a rational jury could not have found the essential elements of the

crime given her testimony was controverted by other witnesses and photographic evidence.

However, the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight

to be given the evidence. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Reconciliation

of conflicts in the evidence is within the exclusive province of the jury. Id. Jimenez asks us to do

what we may not: usurp the jury’s exclusive role by substituting our own judgment for that of the

jury. Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Our duty is instead to

ensure the evidence presented supports the jury’s verdict. Id.

       Here, the jury could have believed B.O.’s testimony; disbelieved other witnesses’

testimony; and not credited Jimenez’s arguments regarding the photographs provided by Jimenez’s

sister. Assessing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational jury

could have found the essential elements of indecency with a child by contact beyond a reasonable

doubt. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 161. We overrule Jimenez’s fourth issue.

                                            CONCLUSION

       Having overruled Jimenez’s issues, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                   Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -8-