Mattias v. State, 11-84-136-CR
| Decision Date | 13 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-84-136-CR,11-84-136-CR |
| Citation | 683 S.W.2d 789 |
| Parties | Diane Marie MATTIAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mike McCollum, Law Offices of Mike McCollum, Dallas, J. Thomas Sullivan, Director, and Pamela B. Aymond of SMU Appellate Clinic, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the offense of misdemeanor prostitution wherein appellant was found guilty by the court of knowingly agreeing to engage in sexual conduct with another for a fee. Punishment was assessed by the court at a fine of $1 probated for one day.
The offense of prostitution is defined in TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. sec. 43.02 (Vernon Supp.1984):
(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly:
(1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct for a fee; or
(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with him in sexual conduct for hire....
Appellant was employed by a modeling agency to do nude and lingerie modeling. An undercover Dallas Police Vice Officer called the agency and requested that two girls be sent to a designated condominium. Appellant and another model responded to the call. On arrival at the location, the two immediately felt unsafe in the situation with the police officers, one a male and one a female, since there were beer cans strewn around the room and the door was bolt locked immediately on their entrance. Because of such fear, the other model stated their fee, doubling same, telling the officers that the fee would be $65 for the agency and $200 per hour for each girl. She testified that by doubling the modeling tip she "figured that $530 and nobody is going to pay that so (they could) get out of there."
The male officer stated that the female officer wanted to be with a girl and he wanted a head job. The other model repeated that her tip was $200 and appellant stated, "I got $250." The two models were then arrested. The other model was acquitted on her jury trial.
Appellant testified that the reason she said "I want $250" in response to the male officer's statement was not with the intention of actually agreeing to engage in sexual conduct or of ever "giving a head job," but rather to "get out of there."
Appellant was charged that she did unlawfully "then and there knowingly offer to and agree with (male undercover officer) ... to engage in sexual conduct ... for a fee."
The thrust of appellant's challenge on appeal regards the failure of the evidence to establish culpable mental state which under the statute is "knowingly." TEX.PENEL CODE ANN. sec. 6.03 (Vernon 1974) defines such culpable mental state as:
* * *
* * *
(b) A persons acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frieling v. State
...evidence holding that the trial court's finding of lack of intent negated the culpable mental state of "knowingly." Mattias v. State, 683 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1984). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision stating: A plain reading of the statute reveals that the partic......
-
Mattias v. State
...is reversed and an acquittal entered. Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978)." Mattias v. State, 683 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1984). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine 1) whether intent to consummate an offer is an element......
-
Office of Puc v. Public Utility Com'n
... ... The Commission referred both applications to the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAH") for contested-case hearings. See PURA § 14.053 (West ... ...
-
Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, No. 03-03-00461-CV (TX 7/28/2005)
... ... The Commission referred both applications to the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAH") for contested-case hearings. See PURA § 14.053 (West ... ...