Is it double jeopardy to charge a defendant with indecency with a child by exposure and indecent exposure if a defendant exposes himself to the child and the mother at the same time, and the defendant then pleads guilty to the indecent exposure to the mother but the indecency by exposure to the child is still pending?

I have a hearing on this tomorrow afternoon. Any help is appreciated!

No. It would be similar to two robbery victims robbed at the same time; you have two different cases that can be prosecuted. The only problem that could affect prosecution of the second one is if the defendant were acquitted of the first one.

It's also similar to an intoxication assault with two victims in the vehicle.

Another good example would be: 18 year old gets in a fight with his father and grandfather. If Grandpa is over 65, you've got two different level charges and two victims. (or 20 year old beats up 18 year old and 13 year old.)

If you are looking for case law, you might search for "allowable unit of prosecution". There are some excellent cases very on point. Example shooting at the same person twice is not prosecutable as two attempted murders, but shooting at two individuals IS. In your example / situation, the focus is on the "victim" as the allowable unit of prosecution; since you have 2 victims, you have 2 cases.

But in an indecent exposure haven't the courts held that "to whom the exposure is directed is not an essential element of the offense" and since indecent exposure is a lesser included of indecency with a child isn't this a different situation than the intox asslt case with two victims.

Remember that indecent exposure to a child has the age element that indecent exposure does not. Maybe the better analogy would be an unlawful restraint of both parties in the same transaction: the additional element of the child's age raises the penalty for that offense. Clearly there are two distinct crimes and two cimes the leg. intends to punish differently.

I'm sure that one of your excellent appellate attorneys in Fort Bend could provide you with an armload of case law. I agree with the above posters who say it is two separate offenses, you have two distinct victims, and the indecency has the age element that differentiates it.

SHerry, this hypo might make it easier to grasp. If it were a robbery instead of an exposure case, and each victim was physically assaulted individually, it is obviously two cases.

baggett v. state, 806 sw2d 207 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) is a case where a defendant exposed himself to a crowd and in dicta the court says the state could have prosecuted a number of different offense for the exposure to the adults and to the children. unfortunately, yanes v. state 149 sw3d 708 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, pet. ref'd.) held that the failure to name a child in the indictment did not violate double jeopardy because it didn't matter how many children the defendant exposed himself to, the gravamen of the offense was the exposure. yanes specifically disagreed with baggett.

Who authored the Yanes opinion, Mr. Newell?

Robert (call me "Bob") Pemberton.