Opinion
NO. 12-11-00153-CR
07-31-2012
KATHY TAYLOR, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kathy Taylor appeals her convictions for four counts of injury to a child and three counts of unlawful restraint. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment on four counts of first degree felony injury to a child and three counts of unlawful restraint, a state jail felony. Appellant pleaded not guilty to all seven counts. A jury found Appellant guilty of the first degree felony offense of injury to a child in Counts I, II, and IV; guilty of the lesser included offense of third degree felony injury to a child in Count III; and guilty of unlawful restraint in Counts V, VI, and VII. The jury assessed punishment at sixteen years of imprisonment in Counts I, II, and IV; five years of imprisonment in Count III; and two years of confinement in Counts V, VI, and VII.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a), (e) (West 2011); id. § 20.02(a), (c)(1).
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In two issues, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions of injury to a child and unlawful restraint. Because these offenses involve the same set of facts, we address these issues together. Standard of Review
Under the single sufficiency standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 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, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); see also Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the trier of fact's responsibility to resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789. Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Id.
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A hypothetically correct jury charge accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the appellant was tried. Id.
Here, for Counts I, II, III, and IV as alleged in the indictment, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury or serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury to children fourteen years of age or younger, by hitting Tyesha and Tameshia Taylor with an electrical cord, by hitting Tyesha Taylor in the face with Appellant's fist, and by burning Tameshia Taylor with a curling iron. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a) (West 2011). For Counts V, VI, and VII as alleged in the indictment, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intentionally and knowingly by force, intimidation, and deception, restrained Deantray, Tameshia, and Tyesha Taylor, children younger than seventeen years of age, without their consent, by restricting their movements by taping their hands and hitting them with an electrical cord. See id. § 20.02(a), (c)(1). Discussion
Appellant contends that a rational jury could not have found the essential elements of injury to a child or unlawful restraint beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
At trial, Robert Cheshire, an investigator for CPS, testified that he responded to an intake report generated in March 2010. Upon gathering information from Appellant's youngest children, Tameshia and Tyesha Taylor, Cheshire contacted Investigator Charlie Harris and set up forensic interviews. After watching the girls' interviews, Investigator Harris obtained a written statement from Appellant's oldest son, Deantray Taylor, because he had also lived in the home with Appellant and his two younger siblings.
Tameshia's and Tyesha's forensic interviews and Deantray's written statement revealed that Appellant had engaged in ongoing abuse of all three children for several years. The children explained that Appellant disciplined them by taping their hands, feet, and mouths and hitting them with an electrical cord. The evidence showed that Appellant disciplined one child for accidentally wetting herself while sleeping and for accidentally touching Appellant with a curling iron while styling Appellant's hair. Other acts for which Appellant disciplined one or more of her children included eating Appellant's snack food that was stored in Appellant's closet, drinking milk or eating food that was in the refrigerator, not answering the telephone in time when Appellant's boyfriend called, "stealing tissue" out of Appellant's bathroom, and flinching at Appellant's hand as it approached one child's face. When she hit the children, Appellant warned them not to move or scream, and told them if they did, she would "start back over."
Appellant's oldest daughter, Tameshia, testified at trial and said that she was under the age of fifteen when Appellant would bind her with duct tape before hitting her with electrical cords. Tameshia was also under the age of fifteen when Appellant burned her with a curling iron. Tameshia showed her scars to the jury, and explained that one of the burns was intentional and the other one was "possibly" accidental. There were no photographs of any other injuries Tameshia sustained as a result of Appellant's abuse. Tameshia explained that she suffered bruising from Appellant's "beatings," but the bruises faded away and were hidden by long pants and jackets when she attended school. Kelly Mott, a friend of Tameshia's, corroborated Tameshia's explanation of her injuries by testifying that she had seen bruises on Tameshia's legs and buttocks.
Kimberly Elam, Appellant's first cousin, testified that Tameshia received the brunt of Appellant's abuse, and infrequently attended school. Tameshia's younger sister, Tyesha, testified that Appellant also punched and choked Tameshia, pulled her hair, and bent her fingers backward. Testimony showed that of all three children, Tameshia was the "most scared," spoke of suicide, and ran in front of a truck that was traveling down the road. Tameshia asked Amy Donahoe, the forensic interviewer, if they were going to have to go back home when they left the interview. She then told Donahoe that
Each of Appellant's three children had an extensive history of school absences and transfers. Each child was at least one grade behind in school. The Hudson ISD Intervention Therapist, Theresa Matthews, testified that truancy was a recurrent problem with all three children. Matthews testified that in a five year span, Tameshia and Tyesha had been withdrawn eleven times and Deantray had been withdrawn five times from Hudson ISD.
--------
I don't want to go home . . . I get really scared, I stay scared, every day. . . now, I have to stay up all through the night so that I can hear her call me so I won't get in trouble. . . . I want to go to whatever house that I can go to that is safe where I won't get hurt.
Tyesha, Appellant's youngest daughter, confirmed Appellant's beatings with electrical cords and bindings with tape. Throughout her testimony and her forensic interview, Tyesha said that Appellant used her fist to hit Tyesha's face and stomach. Tyesha explained that Appellant hit her because she hurt another family member's feelings at a birthday party, and another time because she did not answer the telephone fast enough when Appellant's boyfriend called. But unlike Tameshia, Tyesha still had visible injuries from Appellant's abuse at the time of the outcries. Photographs of looped bruising on Tyesha's leg and arm were admitted into evidence.
Appellant argues the evidence is insufficient because no witness testified to seeing Appellant physically abuse her children, but this is incorrect. Kelly Mott testified that she saw Appellant "beat [Tameshia and Tyeshia] with the electrical cord" and overheard Appellant hitting Deantray in another room when she was at Appellant's house. Kimberly Elam also testified that she saw Appellant physically hit all three children, and confirmed that she told the prosecutor that Appellant would use "whatever she could get her hands on" to hit them. Moreover, the evidence showed that Elam had stayed overnight at Appellant's house so the children would feel like they were safe."
Appellant contends that "overwhelming evidence" supports her innocence. During her case in chief, Appellant called several family members and neighbors. Appellant's witnesses described her as a "great mother" and also testified that because she loved children so much, she had a daycare license and was supposed to be opening a daycare. One witness described Appellant's discipline of her children as "passive," and others described her and the children as being a "big, lovely family." This testimony directly contradicted Elam's testimony that Appellant "just didn't discipline [the children] right," and that she "over-discipline[d]" them. Furthermore, the children's forensic interviews revealed that Appellant brought the children to the interview, and told her daughters that she would have people testify and say she was a good person, that she "didn't want to be going through this," and that the girls could live with their father. Despite the testimony of Appellant's witnesses, the jury found their testimony not credible.
Appellant next argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to prove unlawful restraint because the testimony regarding the color of the tape Appellant used to bind the children was inconsistent. At trial, Tameshia testified that Appellant used gray tape, Deantray's written statement said Appellant used duct tape, and Tyesha's testimony during the State's case in chief was that Appellant used gray tape to bind them. Appellant correctly points out that Tyesha told Donahoe in her forensic interview that Appellant used clear tape to bind their wrists and ankles. Tyesha's inconsistent statements were challenged when she was called during Appellant's case in chief, but Tyesha clarified that Appellant used both gray and clear tape.
Finally, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove injury to a child and unlawful restraint because Deantray Taylor's testimony revealed that the allegations of abuse were "lies" that he, his father, Ricky Taylor, and his sisters, Tameshia and Tyesha created so Ricky could obtain custody of Tameshia and Tyesha. Deantray testified that he lied about Appellant's abuse from the beginning. He also said that the plan against Appellant had been devised for months and that they discussed the plan among themselves at his father's house. Deantray testified that his father told them "what to say and how to say it," and that his sister was "good at deceiving people."
When questioned about his written statement, Deantray said that only portions of his statement were correct. In a protective order hearing held prior to the trial, Deantray had testified that not everything contained in his original statement was true. As a result, Deantray underlined the "true" portions of his statement at that hearing. At trial, the State introduced a copy of Deantray's modified statement from the protective order hearing. Some of the facts Deantray underlined as "true" were that Appellant "taped our hands and feet with duct tape . . . to whip me and my sisters." And he also said in the statement that "[m]y mom believes in a lot of power and will not take no for an answer."
The evidence at trial later showed that Deantray was living with Appellant at the time of trial and rode to court with her on the day of his testimony. The verdict in this case supports a conclusion that the jury found Deantray's testimony that Appellant's abuse was a host of "lies" not credible. Moreover, several witnesses called by the State testified that the children's outcries did not appear to be coached and were consistent with each other.
The applicable standard of review gives deference to the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony and credibility determinations. Therefore, based on our review of the record, we conclude a rational jury could find the essential elements of injury to a child and unlawful restraint beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support Appellant's convictions. We overrule Appellant's first and second issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
NO. 12-11-00153-CR
KATHY TAYLOR,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 217th Judicial District Court
of Angelina County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 29848)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the trial court's order.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the order of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.