Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant was indicted for sexual assault of a child, and a jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to include all of the requirements of sex offender registration in the jury charge during punishment. The appellant alleges that simply listing the requirement that sex offenders register as a possible condition of community supervision was incorrect and incomplete. The appellant requested the trial court to include in the jury charge a complete description of all the requirements associated with sex offender registration. The appellant’s request was denied. Instead, the jury charge provided the trial court may require the appellant, as a condition of community supervision, to register as a sex offender. The appellant contends in his brief that merely stating that he would “have to register” as a condition of community supervision is misleading and deceptive to the jury because the actual requirements of registration are much more onerous. The flaw in appellant’s argument for more specificity in the jury charge is that the registration requirement of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62, applicable to a felon with a reportable conviction or adjudication, becomes a condition of community supervision when a person required to register as a sex offender is granted community supervision. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12 11(e). Under Art. 42.12, a judge granting community supervision to a defendant required to register as a sex offender under Ch. 62 must require that defendant, as a condition of community supervision, to register under that chapter as a sex offender with local law enforcement and submit a blood sample for the purpose of creating a DNA record of the defendant. Because the Ch. 62 registration requirement is a condition of community supervision, all other applicable terms of that chapter need not be listed in the jury charge at the punishment stage. Means v. State, 955 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d, untimely filed). The court concludes, therefore, that the trial court did not err in refusing to include the complete list of requirements for sex offender registration in the jury charge at punishment. The court rejects the appellant’s objections to the trial court’s admission of expert testimony. The court holds the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. The court rejects the appellant’s assertions of charge error. OPINION:Anderson, J.; Anderson, Hudson and Draughn, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.