Lefevers v. State

20 S.W.3d 707, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62, 2000 WL 725067
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 7, 2000
DocketNo. 540-99
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 20 S.W.3d 707 (Lefevers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lefevers v. State, 20 S.W.3d 707, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62, 2000 WL 725067 (Tex. 2000).

Opinions

OPINION

JOHNSON, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court,

in which McCORMICK, P.J., and MEYERS, MANSFIELD, KELLER, PRICE, HOLLAND and WOMACK, J.J. joined.

Appellant John Roger Lefevers was convicted of harassment. See Tex. PeN.Code § 42.07(a)(1). The basis for the conviction was the allegation that appellant told the complainant over the telephone, “I want to feel your breasts.” On appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Lefevers v. State, 10 S.W.3d 348 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1998). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the phrase “I want to feel your breasts” describes an ultimate sex act. We will reverse and remand.

COURT OF APPEALS

In his appeal to the Court of Appeals, appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because his statement to the complainant was not a description of, or solicitation to, commit an “ultimate sex act.” Tex. Pen. Code § 42.07, titled “Harassment,” reads in relevant part:

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he:
(1) initiates communication by telephone or in writing and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;
i¡{ ‡
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), “obscene” means containing a patently offensive description of or a solicitation [709]*709to commit an ultimate sex act, including sexual intercourse, masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus, or a description of an excretory function. * * * *

In determining that the phrase “I want to feel your breasts” is “obscene” as that word is used in § 42.07(a)(1), in that it describes an “ultimate sex act” as defined by § 42.07(b), the Court of Appeals noted that the phrase “ultimate sex act” is not defined in the statute, but that the statute includes a list of acts that is exemplary and not exclusive. Lefevers, 10 S.W.3d at 350. It noted that we had previously held that the legislature had intended the phrase “ultimate sex act” to mean more than a general allegation of sexual activity, so that communications making reference to “making sexual advances to little boys” or “molesting little children” did not qualify as ultimate sex acts, since neither described or solicited a particular act. Id. (citing Pettijohn v. State, 782 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)). However, it also found that we had not declared which unlisted acts were “ultimate sex acts” and that fondling of breasts is not included among the acts described in § 42.07(b). Id.

The court of appeals then noted that although § 42.07(b) does not include fondling of breasts, genitals or the anus, another penal statute, Tex. Pen.Code § 21.01(2),1 recognized these acts as sexual. Id. Therefore, it concluded that the intended object of § 42.07(a)(1) was to protect people from harassing communications that are generally perceived as necessarily sexual in nature, including references to touching another’s breasts, genitals, or anus. Id. On this basis, it found that the statement, “I want to feel your breasts,” described an ultimate sex act, because it is language that explicitly describes an act that is necessarily sexual in nature and was clearly offensive to the complainant. Id. Therefore, it held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Id. at 350-51.

ANALYSIS

The court of appeals’ determination that “I want to feel your breasts” describes an ultimate sex act is based on incorporating § 21.01(2), which defines “sexual contact,” into § 42.07(b). However, the legislature has given no indication that these two provisions are connected in any way. Indeed, the opposite can be fairly implied. As defined in § 21.01(2), “sexual contact” has been given a specific meaning by the legislature. As defined in § 42.07(b), “obscene” has been given a specific meaning by the legislature. That meaning is based upon the term “ultimate sex act,” which the legislature has defined through a non-exclusive list. If the legislature had intended that the term “obscene,” as set out in § 42.07, be defined in terms of the phrase “sexual contact,” as set out in § 21.01(2), it presumably would have said so. Instead, however, it used the phrase “ultimate sex act.” Thus, it appears that something else was meant by that phrase.

Furthermore, the linkage in § 42.07(b) of the phrase “ultimate sex act” to the term “obscene,” indicates that the legislature drafted the statute with an eye toward the constitutional definition of obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), the United States Supreme Court, in setting out the constitutional standard for determination of whether material is obscene, stated that examples included “[pjatently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.” (Emphasis added.) Since that time, a multitude of state legislatures has enacted obscenity statutes which incorporate the terms “ultimate sex acts” or “ultimate sexual acts” and use the language from Mil[710]*710ler, “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.” Although it has been said that this terminology from Miller is not itself unconstitutionally vague,2 legislatures have nevertheless attempted to give more sped-ficity to the meaning of this terminology as a matter of state law. Several statutes give an exclusive list of acts which comprise this term,3 while others have defined it though a non-exclusive list.4 Still others have defined the phrase negatively, by listing it separately from other acts.5 Some [711]*711states use more than one method.6 The common element in these state statutes which define “ultimate sex act” is a requirement of genital or anal contact.

Our legislature has defined “ultimate sex act,” as used in § 42.07, through a non-exclusive list.7 Using that list, we employ a rule of statutory construction, ejusdem generis, to determine what is meant by “ultimate sex act.” Ejusdem generis holds that “in interpreting general words which follow an enumeration of particular or specific things, the meaning of those general words should be confined to things of the same kind.” Perez v. State, 11 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citations omitted). Such a rule “accomplishes the purpose of giving effect to both the particular and the general words, by treating the particular words as indicating the class, and the general words as extending the provisions of the statute to everything embraced in that class, though not specifically named by the particular [712]*712words.” 2A Sutherland Stat. Const. § 47.17, at 189 (5 th ed.1993) (citing

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nuncio, Ex Parte Leonardo
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2022
Stephens, Zena Collins
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2021
Ex Parte Leonardo Nuncio
579 S.W.3d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019)
Buntion v. State
482 S.W.3d 58 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Johnny Richard v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013
Shipp v. State
331 S.W.3d 433 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Shipp, Allen Ray
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011
Hall v. State
62 S.W.3d 918 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Thomas v. State
65 S.W.3d 38 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.W.3d 707, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62, 2000 WL 725067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefevers-v-state-texcrimapp-2000.