- Thread starter
- #681
Understood. That’s why I believe IF it goes to trial, Watson’s previous reputation of community service and good citizenship and his recent conflict with the Texans will be very persuasive versus the testimony of multiple “home masseuses” who have come forward sequentially. I doubt the defense attorney has difficulty discrediting both the authenticity and credibility of the testimony DESPITE the number.The offense of sexual assault is located within Texas Penal Code Section 22.011. Texas also has an aggravated sexual assault statute in Texas Penal Code Section 22.021.
A hypothetical offense of forced oral sodomy against another adult is most likely to be charged under Section 22.011(a)(1)(B).
22.011(b) lists the various ways a sexual assault under 22.011(a)(1) is without the consent of the other person.
The Texas Penal Code also defines consent as "assent in fact, whether express or apparent." Texas Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(11).
Under Texas law, the State does not have to offer evidence of a medical examination in order to prove any sexual offense allegation. Such evidence would help, but not having it isn't necessarily fatal to a State's case. Think of child sexual assault cases where there is almost never any medical evidence. The testimony of the sexual assault complainant alone is sufficient to prove an allegation of sexual assault so long as the testimony meets every element of the offense as alleged and the jury believes it beyond a reasonable doubt. See Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). In Texas, we call this the one-witness rule (and it applies to all cases). See also Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.07 (stating that a conviction for aggravated sexual assault is "supportable on the uncorroborated testimony" of a child complainant) and Vilarreal v. State, 470 S.W.3d 168, 170 (Tex. App.--Austin 2015, no pet.). Basically, if a complainant testifies that someone did xy and z, and it meets all of the elements as alleged in an indictment for sexual assault, and the jury believes it beyond a reasonable doubt, then the conviction would stand.
"The jury is the sole judge of credibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of witnesses." Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). It's up to each individual juror to assess this and come to a verdict. What I mean by this, is that jurors are given a great deal of discretion in deciding who to believe and what they think is suffiicent evidence. Finally, jurors are not given a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, so it's up to them to decide what it means to them. In civil cases, jurors would be given a definition of preponderance of the evidence.
Now before everybody blows up, if he is found guilty of one of the allegations I want him to be punished. My point is that it is incredibly hard to prove that this occurred as it is alleged versus whereas medical exam could be indisputable. I have performed multiple rape examinations in the emergency room.