Marjorie Monroe v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 4, 2002
Docket07-00-00523-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Marjorie Monroe v. State of Texas (Marjorie Monroe v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marjorie Monroe v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

NO. 07-00-0523-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


JANUARY 4, 2002



______________________________


MARJORIE MONROE, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


_________________________________


FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POTTER COUNTY;


NO. 87,239-2; HONORABLE PAMELA C. SIRMON, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Marjorie Monroe appeals from her conviction for failure to report possible child abuse. She asserts via three issues that the statutes under which she was convicted are unconstitutionally vague and that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient for conviction. We affirm.



I. BACKGROUND

In July, 1999, appellant, her husband Keith Monroe, and appellant's four children were living together in Potter County. Keith was the biological father of the youngest of appellant's children. The older three children were by her former husband, Tony Ritter.

In July, 1999, appellant worked at night and Keith worked during the day. Appellant generally returned home from work shortly after 7:00 a.m. Keith stayed at home with the children at night while appellant worked. Keith then would leave to go to his job shortly after appellant returned home in the morning.

During the summer of 1999, Keith sexually abused MBR, appellant's daughter by her marriage to Tony. The abuse took place on occasions when appellant was not at home. During the course of the sexual abuse Keith threatened MBR with various dire consequences such as death if she told anyone of the abusive activities.

During the latter part of July, 1999, Keith became concerned that MBR was going to report the sexual abuse to appellant. Keith, therefore, talked to appellant early one Monday morning when appellant returned from work, and reported to her that he and MBR had been involved in a "confrontation" during the prior Sunday evening. Keith did not specify that the "confrontation" involved sexual abuse. Keith testified during appellant's criminal trial that when appellant asked him about what happened between MBR and him, he denied sexual contact with MBR. His denials to appellant lasted until the summer of 2000, when he finally admitted to appellant that he had sexually abused MBR.

In late July, 1999, MBR related to her father, Tony, some of the activities that Keith had engaged her in. MBR testified at trial that after telling her father of Keith's activities, she told appellant of the activities on at least two different occasions during July.

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Service ("CPS") had an "open" case on the Monroe family during the relevant time frame. The children had been involved in counseling, but missed some scheduled counseling sessions during the summer. On Friday, July 30, 1999, CPS caseworkers visited the Monroe home on a regularly-scheduled visit. The caseworkers talked to appellant about the family situation in general, counseling appointments which the children had missed, medical condition of the children, and visitation of the three older children with their father, Tony. The CPS visit did not go well. Appellant ordered the caseworkers to leave her house. The caseworkers did so, but returned shortly with an Amarillo police officer. During the return visit by the caseworkers, Tony's parents (the Ritters) arrived to pick up the three older children for scheduled weekend visitation. At that time the Ritters told one of the CPS caseworkers, Jacquette Mendez, that MBR had made an outcry to her father, Tony, about Keith having had sexual contact with her. Mendez testified that the report by the Ritters was the first time CPS had knowledge of allegations that Keith had abused MBR.

CPS followed up on the report from the Ritters. The CPS investigation resulted in the children being removed from appellant's home and appellant being charged with failing to report the alleged sexual abuse of MBR.

Appellant pled not guilty. A jury convicted her and assessed punishment at a fine of $2,000 and recommended that she be granted community supervision for two years, which the court granted.

Appellant urges by three issues that her conviction should be reversed. Her first issue asserts that the statute under which she was prosecuted is so vague that it violates her rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the due course of law provision of Article 1, § 19 of the Texas Constitution. Her second issue presents the claim that the State's evidence is legally insufficient for conviction. Her third issue urges factual insufficiency of the evidence. We will address the issues in the order presented.

II. ISSUE ONE: DUE PROCESS OF LAW

The charge against appellant was "...having cause to believe that the physical health, mental health, and welfare of [MBR], a child under the age of 17, had been adversely affected by sexual abuse, [appellant] knowingly failed to report such abuse in accordance with Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code." Appellant claims that the language "having cause to believe" is not defined and is, therefore, so vague as to deprive her of due process of law. She claims that her complaint was presented to the trial court by a Motion to Quash which was overruled. Appellant does not differentiate between her claims under the federal constitution and the Texas Constitution. Because appellant does not argue that the Texas Constitution provides more protection to her than does the United States Constitution, we will not address her state constitution claim separately. See Brown v. State, 943 S.W.2d 35, 36 n.3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).

The State does not question whether appellant has preserved error as to the issue. See Cartier v. State, 2001 WL 454532, *2-3 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, pet. ref'd). Rather, the State asserts that the issue has been foreclosed by the decision of Morris v. State, 833 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 961 (1993). We agree with the State that Morris is determinative of appellant's first issue.

The appellant in Morris was charged with a misdemeanor under former Section 34.07 of the Texas Family Code. (1) That section made it a misdemeanor to knowingly fail to make a report required by Family Code § 34.01. Family Code § 34.01 provided that "A person having cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect by any person shall report in accordance with Section 34.02 of the Texas Family Code." Appellant Morris urged that Family Code §§ 34.01, 34.02, (which specified procedures for making the reports prescribed by Section 34.01), and 34.07 were unconstitutionally vague, both facially and as applied to her, and thus violated her rights to due process of law.

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

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway
135 S.W.3d 598 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Gragg
151 S.W.3d 546 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Goggins v. Leo
849 S.W.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Cartier v. State
58 S.W.3d 756 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Herbert v. Herbert
754 S.W.2d 141 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
Brown v. State
943 S.W.2d 35 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
City of Keller v. Wilson
168 S.W.3d 802 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Johnson v. State
23 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Williams v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
315 S.W.3d 925 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Chambers v. State
805 S.W.2d 459 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Morris v. State
833 S.W.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Clewis v. State
922 S.W.2d 126 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Scott Et Ux. v. Hewitt
90 S.W.2d 816 (Texas Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marjorie Monroe v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marjorie-monroe-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2002.