Jackie Hawkins v. State

Opinion issued December 11, 2008















In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas




NO. 01-07-00628-CR




JACKIE CORNELIUS HAWKINS, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1049249




MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted appellant, Jackie Cornelius Hawkins, of sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment at imprisonment for 10 years, suspended, and placed him on community supervision for 10 years. See Tex Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(B)(i) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior misconduct that he allegedly committed against the complainant.

We affirm.

Background

C.C., the complainant, lived with appellant, who was her stepfather, her mother, two sisters, a brother, a cousin, and her stepbrother, who was two years older than C.C. C.C. trusted appellant, whom she regarded as her father. In August 2005, appellant discovered that C.C., who was 15 years old at the time, and her stepbrother had been engaged in a sexual relationship. One night, appellant overheard C.C. and her stepbrother. C.C.'s stepbrother left C.C.'s bedroom moments before appellant entered. When appellant entered, C.C. was lying naked under "a cover." C.C. denied "doing anything," but appellant pulled the cover off of her and touched her "private area." Then, he told her to put her clothes on and took her for a drive. When appellant stopped the car, he told C.C. to pull her pants down. C.C. cried and refused, and appellant relented as a man walked past the car. Before returning home, appellant questioned her about her sexual relationship with her stepbrother.

A couple of weeks later, C.C. returned home after the first day of school, and appellant sent the other children outside to do some chores. He called C.C. into his bedroom. He told her that she was supposed to tell her mother about her relationship with her stepbrother. C.C. cried and protested; she did not want to get into trouble with her mother. Appellant asked her what she thought her punishment should be, and C.C. responded that she should mow the grass. Appellant said this would arouse her mother's suspicions, but he told C.C. she did not have to confess her relationship with her stepbrother to her mother.

Instead, appellant said he would teach C.C. "how to be grown," and he told her to pull down her pants. C.C. testified that appellant said, "When parents catch their kids smoking cigarettes, then they make them smoke a whole pack of cigarettes. When they catch them drinking beer, they make them drink a whole pack of beer." Appellant then had sex with her against her will, telling her to be quiet as she protested. Afterwards, appellant washed up in the bathroom, gave C.C. a Bible to read, and told C.C. that he was sorry and wanted to "start over."

In November, appellant again interrupted C.C. and her stepbrother while engaged in sexual relations. Appellant threw his son out of C.C.'s bed, and in the ensuing commotion, C.C. told her mother that she had been having sex with her stepbrother. She also told her mother that appellant had raped her on the first day of school. C.C.'s mother called the police.

Appellant did not testify at trial. His entire defensive theory was that C.C. lied about the rape to avoid punishment for having a sexual relationship with her stepbrother. After vigorous cross-examination as to C.C.'s credibility, the State argued that the defense had opened the door to extraneous acts of misconduct: specifically, prior instances of molestation against both C.C. and her younger sister, K.C. Appellant objected under Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. After a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the trial court ruled that the probative value of the proffered testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403 and allowed the introduction of extraneous offense testimony.

C.C. testified that when she was 11 or 12 years old, appellant touched her "private area" under her swimsuit while playing in the pool. She also testified that appellant had touched her "bottom" once in the living room and her "breasts" another time in appellant's bathroom. K.C. testified that when she was 11 or 12 years old, appellant touched her vagina after confronting her about a sexually suggestive letter she had written to a boy.

Although appellant did not testify, C.C.'s and K.C.'s mother, grandmother, and maternal aunt each testified that both C.C. and K.C. had a bad reputation for telling the truth and that appellant had a good reputation for the safe and moral treatment of children. In addition, C.C.'s mother testified that she would have "whooped" C.C. as punishment for her sexual relationship with her stepbrother.

The jury found appellant guilty of sexual assault and sentenced him to ten years community supervision. Appellant's sole appellate issue is that "the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior extraneous conduct allegedly committed by appellant against the complainant." (1)

Standard of Review

We review a trial court's admission of extraneous offense evidence for abuse of discretion. Dennis v. State, 178 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (citing Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). We will affirm as long as the trial court's ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Moses, 105 S.W.3d at 627. "A trial court's ruling will be upheld if reasonably supported by the record and correct on any theory of law applicable to the case." Davis v. State, 177 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).



Extraneous Offense Testimony

Appellant's sole defensive theory was that C.C. fabricated her allegations about the sexual assault to avoid punishment for her relationship with her stepbrother. Appellant argues that the testimony about his extraneous offenses against C.C. is inadmissible character evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). He argues that there was no contested issue regarding any of the 404(b) exceptions and extraneous offense evidence cannot be admitted to rebut a fabrication defense.

However, in a sexual assault case with a complainant under seventeen years of age, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides,

Notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules of Evidence, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by the defendant against the child who is the victim of the alleged offense shall be admitted for its bearing on relevant matters, including:



(1) the state of mind of the defendant and the child; and

(2) the previous and subsequent relationship between the defendant and the child.



Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann art. 38.37, § 2 (Vernon Supp. 2008). Section two of article 38.37 supersedes the application of Texas Rule of Evidence 404. Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998), aff'd on other grounds, 990 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

In this case, C.C. testified that appellant fondled her several times, beginning at age 11 or 12. C.C.'s testimony was relevant to the state of mind of C.C. and appellant, as well as to the previous relationship between them. We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37, § 2.

We overrule appellant's sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.





Sam Nuchia

Justice



Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Nuchia and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1. Appellant does not challenge the admission of evidence of his prior misconduct with C.C.'s younger sister, K.C.