Page 41 - 2023 May June TPA Journal_Neat

defendant’s confession is sufficiently corroborated, wished to discuss prior to the meeting, but
the failure to satisfy the corpus delicti rule should Appellant soon made clear that he wished to
not bar conviction. discuss “improper contact with a young child.”
Appellant told Jenks that he and his wife watched
In this case, Appellant voluntarily confessed to his two children over a weekend for their friends.
pastor and then later to his wife. In each confession, While the children were at Appellant’s home, “he
he admitted that he pushed aside a pre-verbal, took the young daughter into his bedroom and
seventeen-month-old infant’s diaper and touched moved aside her - - pulled down a little bit her
her genital region with his hands, mouth, and penis. diaper and touched her in her genital region with
While the State corroborated the confessions by his hands, with his tongue, and with his penis.”
presenting details showing opportunity, motive, Jenks knew of the child because her parents had
and a guilty conscience, the confessions themselves previously gone to church in his ward. The child
were the only evidence that the touching had was seventeen months old at the time of the
occurred. Appellant challenges his dual convictions confessed conduct. After this meeting, Jenks asked
for indecency with a child by arguing that the the child’s parents to come speak with him
State’s evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the regarding Appellant’s confession. The child’s
corpus delicti rule. The State responds that the mother was very surprised to learn about the
evidence did satisfy the corpus delicti rule, but, in confession because she and her husband had been
the alternative, the State also argues that we should family friends with Appellant and his wife for
recognize an exception to the rule “for cases many years. After the meeting, the parents
involving trustworthy admissions of sexual contacted law enforcement to investigate.
offenses committed against victims incapable of
outcry.” Meanwhile, after his meeting with Bishop Jenks,
Appellant voluntarily told his wife that he needed
We disagree with the State’s first argument but to talk to her about something that happened while
agree with its second. Crimes against children, such he was watching the child in early August of 2016.
as indecency with a child, often involve victims During their conversation, he confessed that,
who lack the ability to relate the occurrence of the “while they were here I touched [the child]’s
crime. In addition, indecency with a child is not an genitals with my hand, my mouth, and my penis.”
offense that would ordinarily cause perceptible Specifically, he said that he took the child to his
harm. Failing to recognize an exception to the bed in the master bedroom, left the door open, and
corpus delicti rule under such circumstances would touched the child with his penis, mouth, and hand.
result in the inability to prosecute such crimes
despite the existence of a voluntary, reliable, and He admitted to reaching underneath the child’s
corroborated confession. Because the record vagina and “using one of his fingers there,” but he
contains evidence sufficiently corroborating facts couldn’t recall “how far it went in.” He claimed
in the Appellant’s confessions, the corpus delicti that he ultimately stopped because he was
rule should not bar his convictions. interrupted by the foul smell of the diaper as he
was using his mouth. Then, while “using his hand
In September of 2016, Appellant reached out to a little bit later,” he realized that he was doing
Thad Jenks, his bishop, to “make a confession[.]” something very wrong. He admitted to doing all
As a bishop, Jenks regularly provided spiritual this while his wife was talking to their daughter on
advice to members of his congregation and sought the back patio and he was inside watching the child
to “help those who confess and are wanting alone. Appellant initially attempted to justify his
spiritual advice to go through the repentance conduct by explaining that he was “curious
process and try to change who they are as whether it would give him an erection or not.” He
people[.]” Jenks didn’t know what Appellant went on to point to his feelings of anger at

36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal