Flurry, 74, Camp Road, Huntington, aggravated sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Bynum St. Raguet St. B26, Lufkin, three counts of possession of child pornography, lifetime.
Kilgore, TX - Neighborhoods, Schools, Relocation Tools, Real Estate, Demographics, Photos, Map
Highway 69 south, Huntington, indecency with a child, lifetime. Pecan St. Box 7, Lufkin, indecency with a child, lifetime. Room F71, Lufkin, indecency with a child, lifetime.
Frank Ave. B, Lufkin, two counts of sexual assault of a child, lifetime. C34, Lufkin, two counts of indecency with a child, lifetime. Denman Ave. Lot 21, Lufkin, two counts of indecency with a child, lifetime. McGaughney, 46, Ponderosa Drive rear lot, Lufkin, aggravated sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Melton, 31, Moody St.
- divorce rate in united states arizona;
- how do i find out my outgoing mail server!
- KCPD | Kilgore College!
- how to find erased messages on a cell phone;
- washington association of criminal defense lawyer.
- de raw inc federal id number?
- white page phone numbers for ma.
Highway 69, Pollok, sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Second St. Chestnut St.
B, Lufkin, sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Lot 27, Lufkin, sexual battery; engaging in sexual activity with a minor, lifetime. Hendrix Ave.
- Welcome to KILGORE, TEXAS.
- Related legal case;
- David Shane Holt.
- finding trade in values for cars;
F1, Diboll, sexual assault of a child; indecency with a child; possession of child pornography, lifetime. First Apt. Lot 22, Lufkin, indecency with a child; aggravated sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Carmel Road Lot 13, Lufkin, sexual assault of a child, lifetime. Broadmoor Drive, Lufkin, two counts of indecency with a child, lifetime. Jones Park, Lufkin, aggravated sexual assault, lifetime.
Trailer 24, Lufkin, three counts of aggravated sexual assault, lifetime. Room 20, Lufkin, aggravated sexual assault of a child, lifetime. A9, Lufkin, sexual assault of a child, three counts of indecency with a child, lifetime. Taylor, 58, E.
Tillery, 56, TX Lot 16, Lufkin, sexual assault — actor is over 17 and victim is less than 14, lifetime. Finally, his third issue suggests we apply the egregious harm analysis to the alleged error. Without an objection, the State introduced evidence alleging that Kilgore had previously sexually assaulted Reed. Reed also testified without objection that Kilgore had held her against her will on at least one prior occasion. The defense, on direct examination of Kilgore s mother, elicited evidence that Kilgore had to be transported by the police to a psychiatric hospital because of being in an agitated or manic state on a prior occasion and that he had also unlawfully used her vehicle while she had been in the hospital.
Neither the State nor Kilgore introduced any evidence of these extraneous offenses during the punishment phase. The punishment charge did not include an instruction regarding the State s burden of proof on these extraneous offenses. Kilgore neither requested this instruction nor objected to its omission. The Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that article Huizar v. State, No. Waco March 15, Absent such instruction, the jury might apply a standard of proof less than reasonable doubt in its determination of the defendant s connection to such offenses and bad acts, contrary to section 3 a.
Huizar, slip op. If a trial court fails to submit such an instruction, the appellate court should conduct the harm analysis prescribed in Almanza. State, S. Under Almanza, an appellant that complains of an error in the charge for the first time on appeal must show that the error was so egregiously harmful that he was denied a fair and impartial trial.
Almanza v. This requires a showing of actual harm, not just theoretical harm. The harm is determined by considering the entire jury charge; the state of the evidence, including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence; the argument of counsel; and any other relevant information revealed by the record as a whole. Mann v. In the case at bar, the trial court did not instruct the jury in any manner about the State's burden at punishment regarding extraneous offense evidence.
Because there was no request or objection to this omission in the charge, we will apply the Almanza egregious harm standard in reviewing the record to determine whether Kilgore is entitled to a new punishment hearing. Kilgore does not contend on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the extraneous offenses, only that the instruction was not given. The guilt phase charge did include an instruction requiring the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Geesa v.https://sicsjumbrici.tk
TX Sex Offender List
As mentioned above, the State did not attempt to elicit any specific information or testimony about the extraneous offenses during the punishment phase. Moreover, Kilgore elicited testimony regarding some of these extraneous offenses. Reviewing the arguments of counsel during the punishment phase, the State referenced one of the alleged extraneous offenses that Kilgore complains of on appeal. However, Kilgore also referred to this extraneous offense in his closing. Defense counsel approached the extraneous-offense evidence strategically. He argued:. We can think about the maturity that Jason has gained since this happened.
Because one of the second things that Mark talked about was that Jason s mother said that he is dangerous. That s not what she said. She believed him, at one time, to be dangerous enough that she called the police. And if I recall her testimony, she said, Jason has changed over the last 12 to 14 months. The punishments assessed were at the lower end of the range for the crimes, aside from the fact the jury found that Kilgore had used a deadly weapon. Kilgore was sentenced to 20 years for Aggravated Sexual Assault and 20 years for Aggravated Kidnapping, which was substantially less than the maximum sentence of 99 years or life for each offense.
Apart from the punishment assessed, we also consider the state of the evidence when determining whether there was egregious harm. The State's evidence at punishment only consisted of the testimony of two officers for opinion and reputation evidence as to Kilgore s bad character for being peaceful and law-abiding. Kilgore s evidence at punishment included the testimony of relatives and family friends that Kilgore had matured while in jail and that he would abide by the conditions of community supervision.