Peters v. State, 081199

Citation997 S.W.2d 377
Parties(Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999) RONALD LEE PETERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee NO. 09-97-466 CR
Decision Date02 September 1999
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas, Trial Court No. B-970101-R

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess, and Stover, JJ.

O P I N I O N

Stover, Justice

Following a plea of not guilty, Ronald Lee Peters was convicted by a jury for the offense of aggravated sexual assault. Punishment was assessed by the court at fifty years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Peters brings six points of error on appeal.

On January 25, 1997, Police officers Ted Picard and Thomas Verrett responded to a call of an alleged sexual assault of a child at a mobile home in Vidor, Texas. Six persons resided in the two bedroom mobile home: Shirley Knapp, A.K. (the victim), Buddy Knapp, Buddy's wife and daughter, and Peters. Both Buddy and Peters are the sons of Shirley. A.K. is Shirley's granddaughter by birth, and daughter by adoption. Thus, Buddy and Peters are the biological uncles of A.K., but also her brothers by adoption. On the date of the offense, A.K. was thirteen years old. Peters was thirty-four.

On the morning of the offense, Buddy entered Peters' room to wake him up, as they were planning to go on an early morning fishing trip. Upon entering the room and turning on the light, he witnessed Peters and A.K. engaged in oral sex. The police were called and, during the ensuing investigation, A.K., Shirley, and Buddy each spoke with Officer Picard and subsequently gave written statements alleging that Peters had sexually assaulted A.K. Prior to and during the ensuing trial, A.K. recanted her prior oral and written statements. In addition, at trial, both Shirley and Buddy testified they could not remember the events of that morning.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Peters guilty of the offense.

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

We begin by addressing Peters' sixth point of error in which he argues the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated sexual assault. He asserts the court erred when it refused to grant his motion for an instructed verdict based upon A.K.'s recantation and the insufficiency of the evidence. He contends the evidence does not show that he intentionally or knowingly committed aggravated sexual assault.

Standard of Review

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). This standard of review remains the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. See Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 159-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Aggravated Sexual Assault

At the time of the offense, Texas law provided that a person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor, and if the victim is younger than fourteen years of age.1 Accordingly, the charge in the instant case instructed the jury on the elements of aggravated sexual assault as follows:

[I]f you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 25th day of January, 1997 in Orange County, Texas, the Defendant, RONALD LEE PETERS, did intentionally and knowingly cause the penetration of the mouth of A.R.K., a child who was then and there younger than 14 years of age and not the spouse of RONALD LEE PETERS, by the sexual organ of RONALD LEE PETERS, then you will find the defendant "guilty" of the offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault and so say by your verdict.

Factual Background
Peters' Statement

We begin our review of the evidence by setting forth Peters' written statement given to the police subsequent to his arrest:

I was asleep in my bedroom. My bedroom doors were closed. I was sleeping in the nude. I woke up and found [A.K.] on top of me in the bed. . . . . [A.K.] was giving me head. My brother, Buddy Knapp, walked into the room and found us during the act. He told me to call the police and I did so. I was in my own room with the doors closed and she came into my room and did this without my permission. I told her you better get out of there but that is when my door opened and my brother walked in.

This is the only time we have had sex of any type during the time I have been living at this address. . . . .

The State argues the jury could have determined Peters' guilt based on this statement alone.2 We disagree. In particular, the statement does not establish that he "intentionally or knowingly" committed the offense.

The Investigation at the Knapp Home; Prior Inconsistent Statements

Officers Picard and Verrett described the hostile environment they encountered upon their arrival at the Knapp residence. Buddy and Peters were sitting across from one another on a couch. Peters sat quietly while Buddy, described by Picard as "irate" and "upset," angrily made accusations that Peters had molested A.K. Shirley was "upset and nervous," pacing in the kitchen. A.K. was sitting in a chair across from her brothers/uncles and was "crying and upset."

At trial, Picard repeated the oral statements made to him by Shirley, Buddy, and A.K. while at the Knapp residence. Over the defense's hearsay objection, Picard testified that Shirley told him she was on the phone when Buddy came out of Peters' room. She told Picard that Buddy hung up the receiver and "said something to the effect that they had a real problem, they needed to talk now." She told the officer that "Buddy had told her that he had caught [A.K.] giving Ron head."

Picard was informed by Buddy that A.K. had been sexually abused by Peters. Prior to appellant interposing a hearsay objection, Picard testified regarding Buddy's statements to him:

[Prosecutor]:

QDid Buddy say anything in response to what Shirley had said?

ABuddy was saying a lot of things. He was very angry, telling me what he had discovered them doing. He mentioned 'child molester' and stuff like this. He was wanting to file charges.

QWhat specifically did Buddy tell you that he saw?

ABuddy told me that he went into the room to wake Ron up to get him up, they were going to go fishing. Said he turned on the light switch, he saw [A.K.] on her knees at the bed, said that Mr. Peters, Ron Peters, was naked and that [A.K.] had his penis in her mouth and she was giving him head."

QI want to be real clear on this. Buddy Knapp told you that he saw his penis in [A.K.'s] mouth?

AYes, sir, he said he caught them in the act, and I asked him, "Did you?" and he said, "Yes, I did."

Officer Picard testified that while he was questioning the family members about the incident, A.K. was "very upset" and "she was crying." The following testimony of Picard as to A.K.'s statements to him was elicited without objection from the defense:

I asked [A.K] as to what happened and she told me she went in to get her shoes, that Mr. Peters was in bed. He pulled the blanket back, he was naked, they started kissing and one thing led to another.

I said, "What do you mean, one thing led to another?" And she said, "He put his penis in my mouth and I gave him a blow job and Buddy walked in on us." . . . .

All three family members subsequently gave written statements to the police alleging that Peters sexually assaulted A.K. At trial, however, A.K. recanted her former statements, and Buddy and Shirley testified they could not remember the events of the morning of the offense.

Testimony at Trial

At trial, Buddy testified that when he walked into the room Peters was lying on the bed naked and A.K. was on her knees by the side of the bed. He testified that he dialed the phone number for the police and Peters talked to them. He admitted he was angry about what he had witnessed that morning. When further questioned, Buddy testified it was his belief that Peters sexually assaulted A.K. that morning. However, he stated it was his belief at trial that he "might have been going overboard a little bit." Upon further questioning about what he told the police that morning, Buddy stated, "Really, Honestly - to be honest with you, I don't remember a whole heck of lot about that morning. I was kind of under the influence and it's kind of like a haze." Picard testified he did not see any signs of Buddy being intoxicated that morning.

Buddy admitted that he had made a prior written statement and read a portion of it at trial:

"I told [Peters] he could either leave the house by either him, Ron Peters, calling the police department or by me calling the police department." "I'd like to press charges on him for child molestation. . . . I found my sister, [A.K.], on her knees on the floor in front of my brother's bed and performing oral sex on him."

Although Buddy testified he could not remember writing the statement because at the time he was "under the influence," over defense counsel's objections, he did admit to the contents of his statement.

Shirley testified that she "observed nothing" and could not remember what happened that morning. She admitted that she had given a statement to the police, but testified the statement was all based on hearsay.

A.K. testified that the room Peters was staying in was formerly her room and contained her personal effects. She stated she went into the bedroom to get her shoes. She described the incident as follows: "[H]e was asleep, naked, but he had a blanket over him, and I took the blanket off and stuck his penis in my mouth, and he woke up right as my other brother walked in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Lopez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 2020
    ...of the evidence to support the conviction. See Flores v. State , 48 S.W.3d 397, 404 (Tex. App. – Waco 2001, pet. ref'd) ; Peters v. State , 997 S.W.2d 377, 382 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1999, no pet.).3. The Elements of the EOCA Offenses as Charged in the Indictment We measure whether the evide......
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2003
    ...through responding officer when complainant testified she could not remember any of the events leading to husband's arrest); Peters v. State, 997 S.W.2d 377, 382-83 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999, no pet.) (holding evidence legally sufficient to establish sexual assault despite being based largely......
  • Heidelberg v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2003
    ...before or after appellant's arrest. A defendant's "[p]re-arrest silence is a constitutionally permissible area of inquiry." Peters v. State, 997 S.W.2d 377, 388 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1999, no pet.) (citing Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 755 (Tex.Crim. However, the cross-examination continued......
  • Jagneaux v. State, No. 10-05-00350-CR (Tex. App. 8/30/2006), 10-05-00350-CR.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 2006
    ...459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Jackson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 626, 631 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd); Peters v. State, 997 S.W.2d 377, 382-83 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1999, no A.M.'s recantation, a lack of physical evidence, and Jagneaux's testimony that no sexual acts occurr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT