Ross v. State
Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. PD–0001–17,PD–0001–17 |
Citation | 543 S.W.3d 227 |
Parties | Rebekah Thonginh ROSS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jessica McDonald, for Appellant.
Steven Brent Lilley, for The State of Texas.
In 2011 Appellant, Rebekah Thonginh Ross, worked as an investigator for the Greenville office of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (hereinafter referred to as "the Department" or "CPS"). In 2015, she was convicted of the offense of official oppression.1 The charge was based on an allegedly unlawful search that Ross conducted pursuant to her duties as a CPS investigator. Ross's conviction was affirmed by the Sixth Court of Appeals.2 We granted Ross's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the court of appeals correctly held that the evidence was sufficient to support Ross's conviction.
Based upon our review of the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross knew her conduct was unlawful, which is an essential element ofthe offense of official oppression. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render a judgment of acquittal.3
On December 12, 2011, the Department received a referral stating that a baby had just been born at a two bedroom, one bath, mobile home to a mother who was using drugs during her pregnancy. The report stated that the newborn had not received any medical attention, and the mother had a previous child who was removed due to the mother's drug use. Ross was assigned to the case on December 13, 2011.
After three days of searching databases and conducting research to locate the mother and baby, on December 15, 2011, Ross filed a Petition for Orders in Aid of Investigation of a Report of Child Abuse or Neglect and For Temporary Restraining Order. In her supporting affidavit, Ross reported what she had found through her investigation:
and beat up.
• There were reports that the Vargas family were believed to use and manufacture drugs.
• Hunt used cocaine and attempted to commit suicide while caring for her first child. Hunt has an extensive history of drug use and was still using drugs at the close of her last CPS case which resulted in the child being placed with his father.
• Ross was told not to go back to the residence alone but to take Law Enforcement with her.
• Ross stated that there does not appear to have been any medical care for the newborn baby. The affidavit stated that "[t]he child may be at imminent risk of harm."
• Ross was told that Program Director Laura Ard had given permission for hair follicle tests to be performed on the mother, father, and child once they were located.
The Order authorized a representative of the Department to enter the home at 2321 Highway 69 S. to examine the child and observe the premises. The Order listed several residences where the mother and child could be because Ross had done an extensive investigation to gather addresses of friends and family members. The Order provided as follows, in pertinent part:
The day after the order was issued, on December 16, 2011, Ross, two deputies, and another Department investigator, Jessica Francis, went back to the same mobile home on Highway 69 S. The deputies broke down the door because no one was home. In searching the bedroom, Ross and a deputy flipped over a mattress and discovered a large stain of blood and bodily fluid on its underside and on the box springs. There was also blood and bodily fluid that had sprayed onto the walls. In the bedroom they found a journal and a calendar indicating that the baby had been born at the home. There was nothing else to indicate whether the child was still alive or whether the child had died.
In the kitchen, Ross instructed a deputy to get a crock pot down from a shelf and look inside. Ross and the deputies also opened kitchen cabinets and drawers. Nothing more was found. Later that day the deputies and Department investigators located Hunt and the baby at a different residence.
After the search at the Highway 69 S. home, Francis reported to Ross's supervisor, Natalie Ausie Reynolds, and to her own supervisor, Rochell Bryant, that she did not believe Ross followed Department policies in conducting the search of the kitchen. Based on this complaint, Ross was eventually charged with the criminal offense of official oppression.4
Ross's indictment alleged that, on or about December 16, 2011, Ross, acting individually or as a party with Natalie Ausbie Reynolds,5 intentionally subjected complainant, Leslie Hunt, to search and/or seizure that Ross knew was unlawful, and Ross was acting under color of her employment as a public servant, namely a CPS investigator for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, at the time of the offense.
Ross's bench trial began on September 17, 2015. The State presented six witnesses, rested, and then the defense rested without presenting any witnesses. The State's first witness was Jessica Francis. She testified to the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ratliff v. State
...As support for this proposition, Ratliff points to Reynolds v. State , 543 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), and to Ross v. State , 543 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Further, Ratliff argues that in those cases, like the present case, no witness testified that the type of training rece......
-
Litchfield v. State
...the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged.'" Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 234 n.14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), and Reynolds v. State, 543 S.W.3d 235, 241 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (both quoting Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d ......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged.'" Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 234 n.14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), and Reynolds v. State, 543 S.W.3d 235, 241 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (both quoting Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d ......
-
Thedford v. State
...the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged." Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 234 n.14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Under the Jackson standard, evidence may be insufficient when the record contains no evidence of an essential eleme......
-
Trial Issues
...1995). An essential element of the offense of official oppression is that the actor knew that her conduct was unlawful. Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). §15:42 Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission §15:42.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §6.01. Requirement of Vo......
-
Trial Issues
...1995). An essential element of the offense of official oppression is that the actor knew that her conduct was unlawful. Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). §15:42 Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission §15:42.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §6.01. Requirement of Vo......
-
Trial issues
...1995). An essential element of the offense of official oppression is that the actor knew that her conduct was unlawful. Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). §15:42 Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission §15:42.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §6.01. Requirement of Vo......
-
Trial Issues
...1995). An essential element of the offense of official oppression is that the actor knew that her conduct was unlawful. Ross v. State, 543 S.W.3d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). §15:42 Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission §15:42.1 Statutory Law Texas Penal Code §6.01. Requirement of Vo......