Barrett v. State
| Docket Number | 05-22-00219-CR |
| Decision Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Parties | JEFFERY LEON BARRETT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32470CR
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith
A jury convicted appellant Jeffery Leon Barrett[1] of continuous trafficking of persons and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine. He contends (1) the trafficking of persons statute is unconstitutional as applied to him, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction under that statute, and (3) the trial court erred by denying his requested jury instruction regarding "the law on labor trafficking" in the Texas Administrative Code. We affirm.
The indictment in this case alleged that on two or more occasions from about February 11, 2012, to September 23, 2017, Mr Barrett engaged in conduct that constituted an offense under Texas Penal Code section 20A.02, titled "Trafficking of Persons." Specifically, the indictment charged he (1) "knowingly traffic[ked]" three of his children under eighteen years old and "through force, fraud, or coercion" caused them "to engage in forced labor or services" and (2) "knowingly receive[d] a benefit from participating in a venture that involved trafficking [those children] and through force, fraud or coercion caused [those children] to engage in forced labor or services."
Mr Barrett's wife, Barbara Barrett, was indicted simultaneously on identical charges in a separate case and represented by separate counsel. The trial court jointly heard and denied the couple's identical (1) pretrial motions to quash the indictments because it is "legally impossible for a parent to submit their own child to forced labor or service," (2) pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus based on "the exact same argument" as the motions to quash, and (3) additional pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus asserting facial constitutional challenges to penal code subsections 20A.02(a)(5) and 20A.02(a)(6). The Barretts appealed the trial court's rulings on the facial constitutional challenges and this Court affirmed. See Ex parte Barrett, 608 S.W.3d 80, 97 (Tex App.-Dallas 2020, pet. ref'd). Then, the Barretts' cases were tried separately.[2]
At trial, T.B.1 testified he was born in 2000 and was adopted by the Barretts when he was about four years old. The Barrett family moved to Texas when T.B.1 was about nine or ten. At that time, the Barretts also had four younger adopted children: daughters T.B.2 and A.B. and sons T.B.3 and J.B.[3]
In 2012, the Barretts and their five children lived in a house on a country road in Greenville, Texas. They had two or three dogs. T.B.1 and T.B.2 attended public school. T.B.1 testified he never saw the Barretts work outside the home in Texas and did not "have any reason to think they did." He stated the Barretts got "checks in the mail" that "had all of the kids' names on them" and "made plans based on those checks coming in every month."
T.B.1 testified that during fifth grade, he was called to the school's office and "there was a CPS case worker in there asking, you know, how is home life."[4] The Barretts removed him and his siblings from school before the end of that school year. T.B.1 and T.B.2 "did home schooling" online for a few months until Ms. Barrett stopped paying for the online program. None of the children received any formal schooling after that.
About a month later, "some other dogs came" and a "structure" was built onto the garage comprising a kennel with cages. According to T.B.1, after the structure was finished, "more and more" dogs arrived. The Barretts obtained a license and began "breeding them for money." There were sometimes more than 100 dogs on the property, mostly yorkies, poodles, and cavaliers.
After the children were withdrawn from school, they were not allowed off the property without Mr. Barrett or Ms. Barrett. Though they sometimes had access to a computer, the children could not see friends and did not receive an allowance. T.B.1 and his sisters were required to perform unpaid work pertaining to the Barretts' dogselling business, which T.B.1 testified consumed "90 percent" of his time.
T.B.1 stated the kennel was an uninsulated metal and plywood structure that was "real hot in the summer." It was "mainly dark" inside and smelled "horrible" inside and outside. The noise was terrible because the dogs' barking "echoed off the building." To talk with someone inside the building, "you would have to be screaming." There also "was a bunch of dogs in the house" that were uncaged.
Seven days a week, Mr. Barrett would awaken T.B.1 by shaking him and tell him to go feed the dogs and quiet them. T.B.1 had to use a 5-gallon bucket to bring water from a bathtub in the house to the kennel. Watering the dogs took about fifteen trips. T.B.1 and his sisters had to clean the dogs' cages without gloves or coverings for their clothing and got dog feces on them "pretty often." The work each morning took about five to six hours. In the evening, the three children fed and watered the dogs again. Additionally, the children were required to administer the dogs' vaccine injections, keep vaccine records, and photograph the dogs for the business's website. If the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation was coming for an inspection, the children had to groom the dogs and do additional cleaning so "the license could get renewed." On those occasions, the three children worked "morning to night" until after dark.
T.B.1 stated that though he and his sisters were "out there every day" cleaning the kennel building, it was not always clean because "you can only do so much with a broom with that many dogs or, you know, people." Though Ms. Barrett rarely entered the kennel building, Mr. Barrett went in "maybe every week or so," sometimes at Ms. Barrett's direction. According to T.B.1, Mr. Barrett was the "muscle" and did what Ms. Barrett wanted done. If Ms. Barrett "found out" the structure was not clean, she would "start screaming" and T.B.1 and his sisters would "get hit because of that." Usually, Mr. Barrett "did the hitting." T.B.1 testified Mr. Barrett never said to Ms. Barrett that "the beatings should stop" or that the children "shouldn't get hit."
T.B.1 also testified "physical abuse happen[ed]" when "somebody wasn't doing something they were supposed to," including "someone not working in the kennel" or "someone talking back about going to work in the kennel." Mr. Barrett "was the one carrying out the punishment" about ninety percent of the time. The item used most often to hit the children was a "stick" consisting of "a two-by-four that was, like, shaved down at the handle." Pieces of that stick were admitted into evidence without objection. The children were hit all over their bodies with the stick, including on their heads, which left "a bump." Other items used to hit the children included "bamboo stick things" and a "brush." T.B.1 stated he and his sisters received beatings by Mr. Barrett "related to the kennel" from 2012 to 2017. The beatings sometimes left bruises that lasted "a while." Additionally, the couple told the children "a lot" that they were "retarded," "worthless," and "good for nothing."
T.B.1 stated the children's work included caring for the dogs that lived in the house. Mr. and Ms. Barrett's bedroom was the "most chaotic" room because about eleven dogs were kept there and were never let outside. The flooring in that bedroom was "encrusted" with dog feces and urine because the dogs "went on the floor" and "it wasn't cleaned." T.B.1 testified that as punishment, one of the girls had to sleep on the floor of that room without a blanket or pillow.
The dogs were sold online and also were taken to public places for sale, including flea markets and Walmart parking lots. T.B.1 went to a Walmart with the Barretts once and saw a sale made in cash. He also went to Sam's Club with them several times to purchase food and kennel supplies and "help[ed] unload some of that stuff."
T.B.1 stated that one night in 2017, T.B.2 said something to Ms. Barrett, who responded by "yelling and throwing shit." T.B.2 ran outside. The Barretts and T.B.1 went looking for her but could not find her. The next day, the Barretts picked up T.B.2 from the police station and brought her back to the house. That same day, CPS came to the house and interviewed all of them. CPS removed the children from the Barrett home a short time later.
Wendy Lopez testified that on September 23, 2017, she finished working her shift at a Greenville restaurant at about 1 a.m. and went "driving around" with a friend. They saw a young girl walking on a service road near a gas station. Ms. Lopez was concerned about the girl's safety, so she stopped and asked the girl if she needed a ride somewhere. The girl, T.B.2, appeared scared but eventually got into Ms. Lopez's car. She smelled of animal feces and urine and "refused to go home." Ms. Lopez and her friend realized she was a minor and called police, who came and picked her up.
Greenville police officer Joshua Robinson testified that at the police station that night, T.B.2 "made an outcry of assault." She had bruises on both arms, which he photographed. Several hours later, Officer Robinson was dispatched to the Barretts' home to assist CPS with their follow-up investigation. He told Ms. Barrett CPS had possession of T.B.2 and wanted to speak with the other children. The other children seemed "nervous" and "didn't have real, true answers to anything CPS was asking." Though CPS did not remove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial