Bradford v. State

• Decision Date: 26 January 2017
• Docket Number: NO. 14–15–00707–CR,14–15–00707–CR
• Citation: 515 S.W.3d 433
• Parties: Elena Antoinette BRADFORD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

515 S.W.3d 433

Elena Antoinette BRADFORD, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 14–15–00707–CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed January 26, 2017

Discretionary Review Refused June 07, 2017

Allison Lindblade, Galveston, TX, for State.

Greg Russell, Galveston, TX, for Appellant.

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.

OPINION

Ken Wise, Justice

A jury found appellantElena Antoinette Bradford guilty of failing to report child abuse.¹In a single issue, appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient under the corpus delicti rule because there is no evidence corroborating her extrajudicial confession.The State contends that the corpus delicti rule does not apply because appellant did not "confess" to the crime.The State does not argue that there is any corroborating evidence of appellant's guilt.

We hold that the corpus delicti rule applies, and no evidence corroborates the corpus delicti.Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render a judgment of acquittal.

I.BACKGROUND

Appellant testified that in 2012appellant's young daughter alleged the child's father had touched the child inappropriately.Appellant reported the possible abuse to the Texas City Police Department.²Appellant testified that because of the 2012 allegation, and because the father was a "registered sex offender,"³appellant did not allow the child to be with the child's father absent adult supervision.⁴The State presented evidence that appellant allowed the child to spend the night at the father's girlfriend's house and that the father had picked up the child from school on several occasions.

Appellant testified that the child had bipolar disorder, oppositional disorder, and ADHD.In March 2014, the father picked up the five-year-old child from school after the child was being disruptive and had been sent to the principal's office.The principal testified that the father was allowed to take the child because there was no documentation at the school prohibiting the father from having access to the child.

Appellant was upset that the school allowed the father to take the child, and she immediately complained to the La Marque Police Department.Detective Danielle Herman spoke with appellant and described her as upset and very distraught: "she seemed like a distraught mother whose child was not where they were supposed to be."Herman testified that during a conversation with appellant, appellant claimed to have reported "possible sexual assault" to Child Protective Services (CPS) about three weeks prior:

Q.What did the defendant tell you?

A.She was upset.Her young child had been released from school with a person that was, I guess, not on an authorized list to have picked the child up.And she told us that the—that the person was also a—or supposed to be a registered sex offender but was not currently registering and that the child had recently made disclosures to her that—of possible sexual assault by this person.

Q.Okay.You said that allegations of possible sexual assault.When did she say these allegations happened or occurred?

A.Approximately three weeks prior to this incident.

....

Q.You said that she told you about these allegations.Did she ever tell you she disclosed them to anyone?

A.Whenever she initially said that the child had made these disclosures to her, I asked her who was currently investigating those allegations.And she told me that she had reported them to CPS about three weeks prior, also.

While another officer immediately began working to locate the child,⁵ Herman began "the other side of the investigation."She contacted CPS and was unable to locate an active investigation for any new allegations of sexual assault.So Herman made a referral to CPS "for neglectful supervision on [appellant] for not having actually reported the allegations prior."

A CPS supervisor, Martha Allen⁶ testified that she investigated the new allegation of sexual assault and neglectful supervision.She met with the child three times.She interviewed other people, as well: appellant, appellant's mother, the father, the father's girlfriend, the father's girlfriend's children (at least one of whom attended the same school as the child), law enforcement personnel, school personnel, and another relative with whom the child was placed outside the home.Allen spoke with appellant more than three times "[u]ntil [appellant] stopped wanting to communicate with [Allen]."Allen gave her impressions about the investigation:

It was a very—it was a mess.It was a very messy case.I mean, the child has seen and witnessed way more than a child her age should see.I feel like she had been coached on what to say to CPS.I felt like I didn't get good, accurate information.I felt like the family was not forthcoming.Difficult, screaming, yelling, racial slurs to me, name calling, kicking me out of their home.Yeah.It was—I mean, it was not a good case.

Appellant testified that she told one of the detectives about the alleged assault from 2012, but she denied saying anything to Detective Herman about an incident occurring three weeks prior.She testified that the child had not made an allegation about the father's inappropriate touching since 2012.She testified that she was upset with Allen for asking the child "[i]f your mama smoke weed."Appellant told the child to "stay in a child's place" and "don't go tell on my household" unless "it's something harming her, somebody abusing her."

The jury found appellant guilty, and the trial court placed her on community supervision.

II.LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient under the corpus delicti rule.The State contends that the rule does not apply because appellant did not confess to any wrongdoing.

First we review general principles for the corpus delicti rule.Then we reject the State's threshold argument about whether the rule applies to appellant's statement to Detective Herman.Finally, we hold that the evidence is legally insufficient under the corpus delicti rule.

A.General Principles for Corpus Delicti Rule

"The corpus delicti rule is one of evidentiary sufficiency affecting cases in which there is an extrajudicial confession."Miller v. State , 457 S.W.3d 919, 924(Tex. Crim. App.2015)."The rule states that, when the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant's extrajudicial confession does not constitute legally sufficient evidence of guilt absent independent evidence of the corpus delicti."Id.(alteration and quotation omitted)."To satisfy the corpus delicti rule, there must be evidence independent of a defendant's extrajudicial confession showing that the essential nature of the charged crime was committed by someone."Id.(alteration and quotation omitted).The corpus delicti rule requires corroboration of two elements of a crime—"an injury or loss and a criminal agent"—but there need not be any independent evidence that the defendant was the criminal culprit.Salazar v. State , 86 S.W.3d 640, 644(Tex. Crim. App.2002).

The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to provide "essential protection for those defendants who would confess to an imaginary crime because of mental infirmity or for other reasons."Miller , 457 S.W.3d at 926.So long as there is independent evidence to render the corpus delicti of a crime "more probable than it would be without the evidence," the essential purposes of the rule have been satisfied.Julian v. State , 492 S.W.3d 462, 468(Tex. App.—Houston[14th Dist.]2016, no pet.) (quoting Gribble v. State , 808 S.W.2d 65, 71–72(Tex. Crim. App. 1990(plurality op.));see alsoRocha v. State , 16 S.W.3d 1, 4(Tex. Crim. App.2000).

B.Corpus Delicti Rule Applies to Admissions of Incriminating Facts

Citing Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of "confession,"the State contends that appellant did not confess because she did not admit to any wrongdoing.The State contends that for the corpus delicti rule to apply, appellant"would've had to confess that she believed the child was being abused and that she failed to report abuse."(emphasis added).We disagree.

The State cites no authority to suggest that the corpus delicti rule applies only when a person admits to every fact necessary to prove guilt.The State notes that recent cases from the Court of Criminal Appeals addressing the corpus delicti rule generally refer to "confessions" without mention of mere "admissions."But the prevailing law is that the corpus delicti rule applies to admissions of incriminating facts that do not amount to a full confession of guilt.

The Court of Criminal Appeals made no distinction between confessions and admissions when applying the corpus delicti rule to a conviction for incest in Marsh v. State , 170 Tex.Crim. 512, 513, 342 S.W.2d 435(1961).The only evidence of intercourse was the defendant's confession and admissions.Id.The court reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence: "Such extrajudicial confession and admissions , standing alone, are not sufficient proof of the corpus delicti."Id.(emphasis added).In East v. State , the court described the corpus delicti rule as applicable to admissions: "It has long been the established rule of law in this state that the ‘corpus delicti’ cannot be proved, alone, by the extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused; there must be corroborating circumstances."146 Tex.Crim. 396, 400, 175 S.W.2d 603(1942)(emphasis added).Quoting Francis Wharton's treatise, the Texas Court of Appeals noted the need for corroboration of " ‘confessions of specific charges or of inculpatory facts .’ "Willard v. State , 27 Tex.App. 386, 11 S.W. 453, 453(1889)(quoting Whart.Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 632)(emphasis added).

Professors Dix and Schmolesky note that "Texas case law contains very little consideration of what constitutes the ‘extrajudicial confessions' " for purposes of the corpus delicti rule.43A George Dix & John...