Thacker v. State
| Decision Date | 25 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A14-92-00595-CR,A14-92-00595-CR |
| Citation | 889 S.W.2d 380 |
| Parties | Leslie Hazlett THACKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dick DeGuerin, Houston, for appellant.
Dan McCrory, Houston, for appellee.
Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and SEARS and ELLIS, JJ.
MAJORITY OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the felony offense of Purchase of a Child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(a)(2) (Vernon 1989). The jury found her guilty and assessed punishment at a $10,000 fine and confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, sentence to be probated. Appellant brings twelve points of error, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court's limiting the time for voir dire, the admission of hearsay statements, the admission of extraneous offenses, and the trial court's failure to submit requested jury instructions. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with purchasing five children from her co-defendant, Adamina DeJesus ("Adamina"), who was charged with selling the children. 1 A person commits the offense of "purchase of a child" if she offers to give, agrees to give, or gives a thing of value to another for acquiring or maintaining the possession of a child for the purpose of adoption. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(a)(2) (Vernon 1989). Section 25.11 prohibits offering compensation for acquiring a child, unless that compensation is a fee legally paid to a child-placing agency, a fee paid to an attorney or physician for services rendered, or a reimbursement of legal or medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(b) (Vernon 1989).
In her fifth point of error, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the payments she gave, either directly or indirectly, to Adamina DeJesus were compensation for acquiring or maintaining the possession of a child for the purpose of adoption. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether 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, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, and conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
Adamina DeJesus was a prostitute and a drug user, and commonly lived on the streets. By 1989, she had given birth to five children, none of whom she chose to raise. At the age of fifteen, she gave birth to Manuel. He was left to the care of his grandparents, and when they died, eventually to the care of an aunt and uncle. Daniel, her second child, was given to a friend. Her third child, Adamina, was given to a second cousin, Juanita Medrano, when the child was four or five months old. Her next two children, Isaac and Meriebel were left to the care of Louise Martinez, a friend of the family, almost immediately after their births. At the time the events of this case, little Adamina was six years old, Meriebel was four, and Isaac two.
In early 1990, Adamina found herself in jail and pregnant once again, this time with twins. Juanita Medrano, who was raising little Adamina, offered to take care of the twins when they were born, and to adopt them and little Adamina. Adamina agreed, and promised her daughter, little Adamina, that she would have a brother or sister to live with her at Juanita's house. Instead of keeping her promises, Adamina contacted Appellant.
Appellant was the sole proprietor of an adoption agency licensed by the State of Texas. She found birth mothers who wanted to give up their children for adoption, and matched the children with adoptive parents. For her services, she was paid a fee by the adoptive parents of $11,000 for a placement, or $2500 for a "hard-to-place" child. Her procedure was for the birth mother to relinquish her parental rights in favor of Appellant, who would then go to court with the adoptive parents and finalize the adoption.
In mid-March of 1990, Appellant met with Adamina. On April 19, 1990, Appellant bonded Adamina out of jail. On April 21, 1990, the twins were born. The next day, Adamina relinquished her parental rights to the twins, and to Isaac, age two, and Meriebel, age four, after which Appellant gave Adamina approximately one hundred dollars in cash. A month later, she signed a relinquishment of her parental rights for little Adamina. Each relinquishment was followed by a series of cash payments from Appellant to Adamina. Appellant noted the payments in her check ledger either with the name of the recipient or the "code number" of Adamina. Appellant kept a "code book" of assigned code numbers which corresponded to various birth mothers. Those numbers would often appear in the "memo" area of Appellant's checks or in her check register. In this case, Adamina was given the code numbers "387" and "395".
Between April 19, 1990 and May 27, 1990, over ten thousand dollars in payments were made, either directly or indirectly, by Appellant to Adamina. The following table helps to demonstrate the timing of the payments and the relinquishments:
DATE ACTIVITY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 4/19/90 $650.00 check paid to bail bond company for release of
Adamina
(2) 4/22/90 Adamina signs relinquishment of parental rights for twins
and for Isaac, 2, and Meriebel, 4
(3) 4/22/90 Appellant gives Adamina $100 in cash
(4) 4/23/90 Appellant cashes a $2500.00 check; check ledger indicates
that check was for "Adamina."
(5) 4/26/90 Appellant cashes a $2000.00 check; memo area of the check
indicates that check was for code number "387"--the code
number for Adamina; check ledger also indicates that
check was for code number "387."
(6) 4/26/90 Appellant cashes a $500.00 check; check ledger indicates
that check was for code number "387"--Adamina's code
number.
(7) 5/01/90 Appellant obtains temporary custody of Isaac and Meriebel;
Court approves adoption of twins by Robersons.
(8) 5/03/90 Appellant tenders $800.00 check to Raymond Licerio;
Licerio testified that check was cashed and all of the
money given to Adamina. Licerio testified the checks
were made out to him so that he could cash them and give
Adamina the money, because Adamina lacked adequate
identification to cash checks made payable to her.
(9) 5/11/90 Appellant tenders $400.00 check to Raymond Licerio;
Licerio testified that check also was cashed and the
money given to Adamina.
(10) 5/18/90 Adamina signs relinquishment of parental rights for her
daughter Adamina.
(11) 5/18/90 Appellant tenders two $400.00 checks to Raymond Licerio;
Licerio testified those checks were cashed and the money
given to Adamina; check ledger indicates that checks
were for "Adamina DeJesus."
(12) 5/19/90 Appellant cashes a $2500.00 check; check ledger indicates
that check was for "Adamina."
(13) 5/27/90 Appellant tenders a check for $500.00 and another check
for $116.00 to Raymond Licerio; Licerio testified that
money was given to Adamina; check ledger indicates that
checks were for "Raymond/Adamina."
----------
Licerio testified that all the money was given to Adamina pursuant to the directions of Appellant. However, these were not the only payments made. There is evidence that, in total, Adamina received over $12,000.00 from Appellant.
The penal code authorizes: (1) fees paid to a child-placing agency which are authorized by law; (2) fees paid to an attorney or physician for services rendered; or (3) reimbursement of legal or medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(b) (Vernon 1989). None of the payments of money by Appellant to Adamina were for any of the above lawful purposes. Chris Ros-Dukler, the director of licensing for the Texas Department of Human Resources, testified that agencies may provide services and assistance to birth mothers, so long as that assistance is not "cash up front." She stated that departmental policy forbids agencies to make cash payments to birth mothers, and that the Department "always views child-placing agencies giving cash, lump sum, retroactive payments [to birth mothers] as constituting undue pressure." This construction of Section 25.11 has recently been affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court, which stated:
Section 25.11 was adopted to deter the potentially coercive effect of payments to expectant mothers at a time when the best interests of the child, and for that matter the mother and father, are most likely to be subordinated by greed or other ulterior motives.... "In fact, the monetary incentive to sell her child may, depending on her financial circumstances, make [the birth mother's] decision less voluntary."
In re Thacker, 881 S.W.2d 307, 309 (1994) (quoting In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227, 1241-42 (1988)). Thus, the payments provided by Appellant to Adamina were "lump sum, retroactive" cash payments, unauthorized by either the penal code or the Texas Department of Human Services.
Appellant did not deny...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollard v. Whitener, WD
...Missouri has not had occasion to apply these principles in the context of a case like this one, Texas has done so in Thacker v. State, 889 S.W.2d 380 (Tx.Ct.App.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 810, 116 S.Ct. 57, 133 L.Ed.2d 21 (1995). Counsel in Thacker had filed a list of questions with the ......
-
Patterson v. State
...the items to be seized with sufficient particularity to avoid the possibility of a general search. Thacker v. State, 889 S.W.2d 380, 389 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.01(c). The particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment pre......
-
McGowan v. State
...about the credibility of the evidence. Miller v. State, 815 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Thacker v. State, 889 S.W.2d 380, 398 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 57, 133 L.Ed.2d 21 (1995). A defendant, however, is not entitled t......
-
Scaggs v. State
...Antonio 1996, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 226, 233 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, no pet.); Thacker v. State, 889 S.W.2d 380, 392 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd); Soliz v. State, 794 S.W.2d 110, 113 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. Appellant contends that his ......
-
Cracks in the Cost Structure of Agency Adoption
...conviction for the sale of a child because over $10,000 in payments were made outside of the confines of the statute); Thacker v. State, 889 S.W.2d 380, 384–86 (Tex. App. 1994) (finding that a mother and an attorney violated the statute when the attorney paid the mother a total of $12,000 f......