In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________ NO. 09-23-00117-CR NO. 09-23-00118-CR ________________
EANDRE JUWON MOTT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. F21-38241 and F21-38242 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Eandre Juwon Mott 1 was indicted for sexual assault of a child,
“McKensie,” and continuous sexual abuse of a young child, “Debbie.”2 Tex. Penal
1 The record reflects that Eandre Juwon Mott is also known as Eandre Juwon Mott Sr. 2 We refer to the victims, their relatives, and the civilian witnesses by pseudonyms to conceal their identities. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[.]”). See Smith v. State, No. 09- 1 Code Ann. §§ 22.011, 21.02. He was convicted of both offenses, and sentenced to
20 years and life, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice.
On appeal, Mott contends that his conviction in Trial Court Cause Number
21-38242 should be reversed because he was denied his constitutional right to
confront his accuser due to the State’s failure to produce Debbie to testify at trial.
He doesn’t assign any error to the trial court’s rulings in Trial Court Cause Number
F21-38241. We find no error in the trial court’s rulings, and consequently affirm its
judgments.
I. Background
The Beaumont Police Department received an anonymous report that an adult
man, Mott, was living with one or more underage girls. Upon investigating this
report, the police discovered that Mott had been engaged in sexual relationships with
Debbie and McKensie; Debbie was under 14 years old, and McKensie was 16 at the
time she became pregnant with Mott’s baby. Mott was in his twenties.
Mott represented himself at trial. Mott never denied having had sexual
relationships with Debbie and McKensie. Instead, his position at trial was that he
17-00081-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 was not guilty of the offenses charged because both girls had lied about their ages.3
He does not argue this point on appeal, but rather contends that because Debbie did
not testify at trial, and because the trial court did not permit him to introduce the
videotape of Debbie’s forensic interview, he was denied his right to confront and
cross-examine the witnesses against him.4
Because McKensie did testify at trial, and Mott had the opportunity to
confront and cross-examine her, Mott’s sole appellate argument does not apply to
his conviction for sexual assault of a child. We therefore confine our review to
Mott’s argument as it pertains to Debbie and summarize below only that evidence
relevant to Mott’s conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a young child.
A. Officers Rodriguez and Fenner’s Testimony
Officers Brandon Rodriguez and Jonathan Fenner, of the Beaumont Police
Department, testified that they were among the officers to respond to Mott’s house
3 The record does show that Debbie lied about her age. However, even if the evidence conclusively showed that Debbie and McKensie lied about their ages, and that Mott had no way of determining their correct ages, his conviction would stand, because such a mistake is not a defense to these charges. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b)(2)(A), 22.011(a)(2)(A); see also Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d 577, 582- 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (negating a mistake-of-age defense). 4 At trial, Mott stated that he was being denied “my Sixth Amendment right to confront my witness and my victim.” A criminal defendant does not necessarily have the right to confront his victim (e.g., when a victim has been murdered and is not available for trial). A criminal defendant has the right to confront “the witnesses against him.” U.S. CONST. amend VI; See Morrow v. State, 862 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (citation omitted). 3 after the police received the anonymous report regarding underage girls. When the
officers arrived at Mott’s residence, they knocked, and Mott answered the door and
identified himself by name and birth date. Mott was then 28 years old. The officers
also noted that there were two girls at the house; one of these girls, later identified
as Debbie, looked very young, but stated that she was 20 years old. Because of the
nature of the situation, detectives were called to the scene.
B. Detectives Landor and Duchamp’s Testimony
Detective Charles Duchamp, also of the Beaumont Police Department,
testified, describing his training and experience in the field of law enforcement. As
of the trial date, he had been assigned to the special crimes unit for several years;
this unit investigates crimes against children and sex offenses. Duchamp also
referenced his training in using Cellebrite, a computer program that downloads and
analyzes cell phone data.
In July 2021, Duchamp and his partner, Detective Staci Landor, were called
to Mott’s home after an anonymous caller reported that an adult man was living there
with underage girls. Their investigation revealed that Debbie appeared to be living
at that address with Mott. Debbie was 13 years old at that time.
Debbie and her mother were taken to a local hospital, so that Debbie could
obtain any necessary medical care, and so that she could receive a forensic
examination performed by a trained sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE). During
4 her examination, Debbie stated that she and Mott had been engaging in sexual
intercourse, and that she had videos of their sexual activity on her phone. The police
therefore secured Debbie’s phone and obtained her mother’s permission to search
and download its contents. As expected, the phone contained sexually explicit videos
of Debbie and Mott. This evidence was admitted with no objection and was played
for the jury. The videos displayed the activities alleged in the indictment.
Duchamp obtained a search warrant for Mott’s DNA, and the DPS crime
laboratory matched it to a sample taken during Debbie’s forensic examination. He
also confirmed that Debbie underwent a forensic interview at the Garth House.
When Mott requested to show the jury the videotape of Debbie’s forensic interview,
the State objected that Mott had not laid the correct predicate for showing the tape;
the trial court sustained the objection.
Detective Staci Landor also went to Mott’s house and spoke to Debbie on the
date in question. Landor generally confirmed Duchamp’s testimony.
C. Tanya Gregory’s Testimony
Ms. Gregory, Debbie’s mother, testified that Debbie was 12 years old in
November 2020, and turned 13 the following summer. According to Gregory,
Debbie explained her visits to Mott’s house by claiming that she was babysitting his
children.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________ NO. 09-23-00117-CR NO. 09-23-00118-CR ________________
EANDRE JUWON MOTT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. F21-38241 and F21-38242 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Eandre Juwon Mott 1 was indicted for sexual assault of a child,
“McKensie,” and continuous sexual abuse of a young child, “Debbie.”2 Tex. Penal
1 The record reflects that Eandre Juwon Mott is also known as Eandre Juwon Mott Sr. 2 We refer to the victims, their relatives, and the civilian witnesses by pseudonyms to conceal their identities. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[.]”). See Smith v. State, No. 09- 1 Code Ann. §§ 22.011, 21.02. He was convicted of both offenses, and sentenced to
20 years and life, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice.
On appeal, Mott contends that his conviction in Trial Court Cause Number
21-38242 should be reversed because he was denied his constitutional right to
confront his accuser due to the State’s failure to produce Debbie to testify at trial.
He doesn’t assign any error to the trial court’s rulings in Trial Court Cause Number
F21-38241. We find no error in the trial court’s rulings, and consequently affirm its
judgments.
I. Background
The Beaumont Police Department received an anonymous report that an adult
man, Mott, was living with one or more underage girls. Upon investigating this
report, the police discovered that Mott had been engaged in sexual relationships with
Debbie and McKensie; Debbie was under 14 years old, and McKensie was 16 at the
time she became pregnant with Mott’s baby. Mott was in his twenties.
Mott represented himself at trial. Mott never denied having had sexual
relationships with Debbie and McKensie. Instead, his position at trial was that he
17-00081-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 was not guilty of the offenses charged because both girls had lied about their ages.3
He does not argue this point on appeal, but rather contends that because Debbie did
not testify at trial, and because the trial court did not permit him to introduce the
videotape of Debbie’s forensic interview, he was denied his right to confront and
cross-examine the witnesses against him.4
Because McKensie did testify at trial, and Mott had the opportunity to
confront and cross-examine her, Mott’s sole appellate argument does not apply to
his conviction for sexual assault of a child. We therefore confine our review to
Mott’s argument as it pertains to Debbie and summarize below only that evidence
relevant to Mott’s conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a young child.
A. Officers Rodriguez and Fenner’s Testimony
Officers Brandon Rodriguez and Jonathan Fenner, of the Beaumont Police
Department, testified that they were among the officers to respond to Mott’s house
3 The record does show that Debbie lied about her age. However, even if the evidence conclusively showed that Debbie and McKensie lied about their ages, and that Mott had no way of determining their correct ages, his conviction would stand, because such a mistake is not a defense to these charges. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b)(2)(A), 22.011(a)(2)(A); see also Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d 577, 582- 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (negating a mistake-of-age defense). 4 At trial, Mott stated that he was being denied “my Sixth Amendment right to confront my witness and my victim.” A criminal defendant does not necessarily have the right to confront his victim (e.g., when a victim has been murdered and is not available for trial). A criminal defendant has the right to confront “the witnesses against him.” U.S. CONST. amend VI; See Morrow v. State, 862 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (citation omitted). 3 after the police received the anonymous report regarding underage girls. When the
officers arrived at Mott’s residence, they knocked, and Mott answered the door and
identified himself by name and birth date. Mott was then 28 years old. The officers
also noted that there were two girls at the house; one of these girls, later identified
as Debbie, looked very young, but stated that she was 20 years old. Because of the
nature of the situation, detectives were called to the scene.
B. Detectives Landor and Duchamp’s Testimony
Detective Charles Duchamp, also of the Beaumont Police Department,
testified, describing his training and experience in the field of law enforcement. As
of the trial date, he had been assigned to the special crimes unit for several years;
this unit investigates crimes against children and sex offenses. Duchamp also
referenced his training in using Cellebrite, a computer program that downloads and
analyzes cell phone data.
In July 2021, Duchamp and his partner, Detective Staci Landor, were called
to Mott’s home after an anonymous caller reported that an adult man was living there
with underage girls. Their investigation revealed that Debbie appeared to be living
at that address with Mott. Debbie was 13 years old at that time.
Debbie and her mother were taken to a local hospital, so that Debbie could
obtain any necessary medical care, and so that she could receive a forensic
examination performed by a trained sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE). During
4 her examination, Debbie stated that she and Mott had been engaging in sexual
intercourse, and that she had videos of their sexual activity on her phone. The police
therefore secured Debbie’s phone and obtained her mother’s permission to search
and download its contents. As expected, the phone contained sexually explicit videos
of Debbie and Mott. This evidence was admitted with no objection and was played
for the jury. The videos displayed the activities alleged in the indictment.
Duchamp obtained a search warrant for Mott’s DNA, and the DPS crime
laboratory matched it to a sample taken during Debbie’s forensic examination. He
also confirmed that Debbie underwent a forensic interview at the Garth House.
When Mott requested to show the jury the videotape of Debbie’s forensic interview,
the State objected that Mott had not laid the correct predicate for showing the tape;
the trial court sustained the objection.
Detective Staci Landor also went to Mott’s house and spoke to Debbie on the
date in question. Landor generally confirmed Duchamp’s testimony.
C. Tanya Gregory’s Testimony
Ms. Gregory, Debbie’s mother, testified that Debbie was 12 years old in
November 2020, and turned 13 the following summer. According to Gregory,
Debbie explained her visits to Mott’s house by claiming that she was babysitting his
children. Until July 2021, when officers investigated the anonymous complaint,
Gregory was unaware that Debbie had been living with Mott.
5 D. Niya Knighton’s Testimony
Niya Knighton, the sexual assault nurse examiner who examined Debbie,
testified, describing her education and training in the field of forensic nursing.
Knighton described the procedures involved in a forensic examination, noting that it
may include collecting DNA evidence.
During Debbie’s examination, Debbie named Mott as the person with whom
she had had sexual relations, so Knighton collected evidence and made a report of
her findings. Debbie also told Knighton that her cell phone contained videos of
sexual encounters with Mott. Mott did not object to either Knighton’s testimony or
her report.
E. Michelle Turner’s Testimony
Turner, a forensic scientist with the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime
Laboratory, described her educational and professional qualifications. She also
described her usual job duties, as well as the procedures involved in screening sexual
assault evidence for further analysis.
F. Berenger Chan’s Testimony
Chan, like Turner, is a forensic scientist at the DPS Crime Laboratory, where
his responsibilities include analyzing samples to interpret DNA profiles. After
describing DNA and its use in criminal investigations, Chan explained how DNA is
analyzed.
6 In this case, Chan received a DNA sample collected from Mott for comparison
with swabs taken from Debbie during her sexual assault examination. According to
Chan, it was 997 septillion times more likely that the DNA profile obtained from
Debbie’s vaginal and cervical swabs came from Mott than from an unknown,
unrelated individual.
II. Standard of Review
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “[i]n
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with
the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. amend VI.
A Confrontation Clause violation, when it occurs, is constitutional error
subject to a harm analysis under Rule 44.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010);
Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a).
III. Analysis
Mott argued that he should have been provided the opportunity to confront
and cross-examine Debbie at trial, or, in the alternative, that he should have been
allowed to show the jury the videotape of Debbie’s forensic interview. Because the
trial court denied Mott both of these requests, he contends that the trial court violated
the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
7 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees a criminal defendant the
right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” U.S. CONST. amends VI,
XIV, § 1; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965) (holding that the confrontation
clause applies to prosecutions in state courts). “Witness” is defined not as the victim
of a crime, but as “‘one who has testified in an official proceeding.’” Morrow v.
State, 862 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (citation omitted). Because
Debbie did not testify at trial, she was not a witness, as the Court of Criminal Appeals
has defined that term. Id. In addition, Mott did not attempt to make her a witness by
issuing a subpoena to require her appearance at trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 24.01(a); see also Kinnett v. State, 623 S.W.3d 876, 891-94 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (regarding the right to subpoena a witness).
Mott, therefore, had no right to confront or cross-examine her during his trial and no
Confrontation Clause violation occurred.
As for Mott’s request to introduce the videotape of Debbie’s forensic
interview, Mott failed to make an offer of proof, and therefore has failed to preserve
error. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); see Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884, 891 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009) (affirming a capital murder conviction noting the absence of an offer of
proof does not preserve the alleged error for appellate review). Without knowing
what that videotape would have shown, and how its content would have benefitted
8 Mott’s defense, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying Mott’s
request to play the tape, particularly since he failed to follow the rules of evidence
to demonstrate that the tape was admissible. See Fletcher v. State, 474 S.W.3d 389,
396 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d) (holding a pro se criminal
defendant to the same standard as a licensed attorney).
In addition to the above, Mott has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s
alleged error harmed him. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). The record contains
overwhelming evidence of Mott’s guilt, in that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt
that Mott engaged in multiple acts of sexual abuse of Debbie, that she was under 14
years old at the time, that he was then at least 17 years old, and that these acts took
place over a period over 30 days in duration. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). Even
if Debbie had testified and admitted that she lied about her age, this hypothetical
evidence would have added nothing to Mott’s defense because, as noted above, there
is no mistake-of-age defense in this type of case. See Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d
577, 582-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (negating mistake-of-age defense).
We overrule Mott’s sole appellate argument.
IV. Conclusion
Finding that Mott was not denied his constitutional right to confront or cross-
examine the witness, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
9 AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT Justice
Submitted on December 22, 2023 Opinion Delivered January 31, 2024 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.