TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Texas Penal Code (online solicitation) 33.021(b) now facially unconstitutional
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Texas Penal Code (online solicitation) 33.021(b) now facially unconstitutional Login/Join 
Member
posted
Ex Parte John Christopher Lo

CCA No. PD-1560-12

Delivered Oct. 30, 2013
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: June 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 2127 | Location: McKinney, Texas, USA | Registered: February 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have to think that the CCA is the first court of review to mention the Miley Cyrus "twerking" incident in a published opinion...
 
Posts: 67 | Location: Sulphur Springs, TX | Registered: April 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm glad 50 Shades of Grey made it in there too. Smile


C Wilde
 
Posts: 36 | Location: San Marcos, Texas | Registered: December 28, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 394 | Location: Waco, Tx | Registered: July 24, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 218 | Location: The Border | Registered: April 08, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 273 | Registered: January 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 16 | Registered: September 24, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Texas Penal Code (online solicitation) 33.021(b) now facially unconstitutional

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.