TDCAA Community
Texas Penal Code (online solicitation) 33.021(b) now facially unconstitutional

This topic can be found at:
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/157098965/m/9667033216

October 30, 2013, 12:56
Shawn Connally
Texas Penal Code (online solicitation) 33.021(b) now facially unconstitutional
Ex Parte John Christopher Lo

CCA No. PD-1560-12

Delivered Oct. 30, 2013
October 30, 2013, 13:34
JohnR
Opinion Link Here
October 30, 2013, 14:08
Steve Lilley
I have to think that the CCA is the first court of review to mention the Miley Cyrus "twerking" incident in a published opinion...
October 30, 2013, 14:38
C Wilde
I'm glad 50 Shades of Grey made it in there too. Smile


C Wilde
October 30, 2013, 14:59
Brody V. Burks
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Lilley:
I have to think that the CCA is the first court of review to mention the Miley Cyrus "twerking" incident in a published opinion...


Fun fact- when you search for the term "twerking" on Lexis for Texas appellate opinions, this case immediately loads.

However, it's not the first published case with the word "twerking" in it. That distincting belongs to the 5th Circuit, in http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6899679027001146652&q=twerking&hl=en&as_sdt=3,44] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v.BOH BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C. last month.
October 31, 2013, 11:19
MDK27
Okay, I get it. But there are going to be a lot of "mad dads" (and moms) out there, and I always worry about vigilantism when the law can provide no remedy. Parents don't generally respond well to the "it's his constitutional right", when dealing with pervs.
October 31, 2013, 15:58
rob kepple
OK, I fess up to being involved in the drafting of this statute. Seemed like a good idea at the time. The thought was that the "intent to gratify" element would take it into constitutional territory. I agree that a teacher sending a kid a book or discussing it could be protected speech, but if the teacher is sending certain passages of 50 Shades of Gray along with other inappropriate messages, seemed like grooming conduct which would support a constitutional prosecution. I am not sure that the suggested langauge will be that helpful -- pretty narrow. Thoughts on the language Judge Cochran suggests?
November 19, 2013, 14:40
Kate Squires
Just to clarify, as we are dealing with this issue now, 33.021(b), including subsection 1 and 2 has been struck down as unconstitutional. This would seemingly include all cases where an adult defendant sent nude pictures of himself to an underage child. Correct? Has anybody had any luck in recharging these cases under the Criminal Solicitation statute?