Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 02, 2010

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Fleming v. State,   No. 02-09-00215-CR    (Aug. 05, 2010)   (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J., and William Brigham, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).

Held:   There is no fundamental right entitling Appellant to a mistake-of-age defense or to a requirement by the State to demonstrate a culpable mental state regarding Texas Penal Code section 22.021. Despite the general requirement of a culpable mental state in criminal statutes, the well-accepted legislative purpose for omitting scienter regarding the victim's age in a statutory rape scheme does not offend substantive due process. Furthermore, strict liability regarding section 22.021 furthers the legitimate government interest in protecting children.

O'Dell v. Wright,   No. 02-09-00062-CV    (Aug. 05, 2010)   (Meier, J., joined by McCoy, J.; Livingston, C.J., concurs without opinion).

Held:   The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Appellant failed to establish his burden that there was good cause for not timely disclosing a witness or prove that his failure to disclose the witness would not have surprised or prejudiced Appellee. Additionally, assuming that Appellant preserved his relevance objection for our review, the trial court did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably by allowing the plaintiff to testify about events that allegedly occurred when she was five years old. Furthermore, Appellee presented legally and factually sufficient evidence of compensable mental anguish both to her assault and to her sexual harassment claims, and the damages amount awarded by the jury was fair and reasonable. Finally, Appellant never pleaded Texas Labor Code Section 21.2585's statutory cap; thus, the trial court did not err by entering judgment based on the jury's finding of an award in excess of the statutory cap.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «