AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 9, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00523-CR
STEVEN GLENN BAUGH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-83488-2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Appellant, Steven Glenn Baugh, was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse
of a child under the age of fourteen, enhanced by a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault
of a child. Baugh waived his right to a jury and was tried by the court on a plea of not guilty.
Baugh pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court found Baugh guilty of the
offense as alleged in the indictment and found the enhancement paragraph true. Baugh was
sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole.1 On appeal, Baugh challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because the issues
are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(c)(4)(A). BACKGROUND
The indictment charged Baugh with committing two or more acts of sexual abuse against
B.R. and S.K., during a period that was thirty days or more in duration, beginning on or about May
1, 2010 and ending September 1, 2012. The alleged acts of sexual abuse against both B.R. and
S.K. included aggravated sexual assault by penetration of their female sexual organ and indecency
with a child. At the close of trial, the State abandoned the allegation regarding indecency with a
child pertaining to B.R.
At the time of trial, B.R. was fourteen years old. She met Baugh in September 2011, when
she was eight years old. Baugh contacted B.R.’s mother, Kendra Lott, and arranged the meeting
because he believed he was B.R.’s biological father.2 Baugh’s wife, Judith, was pregnant when
B.R. met them. After their initial meeting, B.R. spent a lot of time with Baugh and Judith; they
did fun things together, including hanging out at their trailer home and going to dinner. B.R.
testified that she would see them “every or every other weekend.”
B.R. started spending the night with Baugh and Judith at their trailer in Wylie. The first
couple of times she spent the night, she slept on one of two couches in the living room. One time
when she was sleeping on the couch, Baugh came over and kissed her on the mouth before he left
for work. After that incident, Baugh sexually assaulted B.R. on numerous occasions. B.R. testified
that late at night when she was sleeping on a couch, Baugh would come into the living room, pull
down her pants, and put her penis inside of her in the area where she “pees.” It hurt when Baugh
did this, but B.R. tried to act like she was asleep. When Baugh stopped being inside of her, he
pulled her pants back up, and put the blankets back over her. This happened more than once when
2 Lott testified that she had known Baugh for most of her life and had a sexual relationship with him when she was fourteen or fifteen years old. After many years of no contact, Baugh reached out to Lott. Although Lott knew Baugh was not B.R.’s father, Lott filed a child support application with the Attorney General’s Office regarding Baugh, but later abandoned her claim. Lott testified that she never told B.R. who her father was and never lead her to believe that Baugh was her father. After talking with Baugh and meeting his wife, Lott thought it would be a good idea for B.R. to have a positive male role model in her life and encouraged the relationship. –2– she slept on the couch, and one time after she started sleeping in one of the guest bedrooms. It
also happened two times when she slept with Baugh and Judith in their bed. The first time it
happened in Baugh and Judith’s bed was when they lived in the trailer, and Judith was still
pregnant. The second time was at the new house in Princeton, a couple of weeks after they moved
in.3 When Baugh and Judith moved to the new house, the baby was a little over one month old. In
2016, B.R. reported the sexual abuse to a school counselor, and to her mother and stepfather.
Judith, Baugh’s wife, testified that B.R. did not come to stay with them every week.
According to Judith, B.R. never slept in the same bed with her and Baugh. She also testified that
her son was born on May 9, 2012, when they still lived in the trailer.
S.K. was nineteen years old at the time of trial. Her grandmother is Baugh’s aunt and her
mother is his cousin. S.K.’s grandmother lived down the street from the house S.K. lived in on
Green Acres in Princeton. One day S.K. was at her grandmother’s house, sitting on the couch,
when Baugh came in and sat next to her. He rested his hand on her inner thigh and then moved
his hand under her shorts and put his fingers in her vagina. S.K. kept asking him to stop; Baugh
told her it was okay, and that he knew what he was doing. Although S.K. did not remember exactly
when this happened, the evidence established that the sexual abuse happened before she was
fourteen years old, “a little bit before”4 her mother got married, and the family moved out of the
home on Greenfield Acres. S.K. reported this abuse in the summer of 2017 after she attended a
church camp also attended by B.R. During the camp, the two girls shared that they had been
sexually abused. They discovered that it was Baugh who had abused both of them.
3 B.R. testified that the first time she decided to sleep in their bed was because she thought if she slept in the bedroom with Baugh and his wife, Baugh would not assault her. The second time B.R. slept in their bed because they had just moved to the new house in Princeton and had not yet set up all of their furniture for B.R. to sleep somewhere else. 4 When asked by the prosecutor about the timing of the abuse in relation to her family moving out of the house on Greenfield Acres, the prosecutor asked if it was “just before or did it seem like it was a little bit before?” S.K. replied, “I think it was a little before,” but S.K. did not know how long before. –3– S.K.’s mother, Nancy Shoemaker, testified that Baugh is her cousin and that her mother is
his aunt. When she was growing up, Baugh and his family would come and see her mother often.
They lived at 2508 Greenfield Acres in Princeton from 2006 until Shoemaker got married on May
12, 2012. Her mother lived in the same neighborhood at 2519 Greenfield Acres. After Shoemaker
moved out, her dad lived there for about a month until Baugh and his family moved into the house
in June 2012. Shoemaker testified that her mother always had people at her house until her mother
had her accident on December 1, 2012.
Baugh testified on his own behalf and denied that he ever sexually abused B.R. or S.K.
Baugh testified that he spent a year with B.R., and that she came over almost every two weeks.
When B.R. first started spending the night with him and Judith in the trailer, she slept on the couch,
but they eventually created a guest room for her to stay in. Baugh denied that B.R. every slept in
the bed with him and Judith. He testified he and Judith moved into the Princeton house in June
2012, when his son was a little over a month old. Baugh also testified that he grew up with S.K.’s
mother and knew S.K.’s family very well.
ANALYSIS
In Baugh’s first issue, he contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 9, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00523-CR
STEVEN GLENN BAUGH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-83488-2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Appellant, Steven Glenn Baugh, was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse
of a child under the age of fourteen, enhanced by a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault
of a child. Baugh waived his right to a jury and was tried by the court on a plea of not guilty.
Baugh pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court found Baugh guilty of the
offense as alleged in the indictment and found the enhancement paragraph true. Baugh was
sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole.1 On appeal, Baugh challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because the issues
are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(c)(4)(A). BACKGROUND
The indictment charged Baugh with committing two or more acts of sexual abuse against
B.R. and S.K., during a period that was thirty days or more in duration, beginning on or about May
1, 2010 and ending September 1, 2012. The alleged acts of sexual abuse against both B.R. and
S.K. included aggravated sexual assault by penetration of their female sexual organ and indecency
with a child. At the close of trial, the State abandoned the allegation regarding indecency with a
child pertaining to B.R.
At the time of trial, B.R. was fourteen years old. She met Baugh in September 2011, when
she was eight years old. Baugh contacted B.R.’s mother, Kendra Lott, and arranged the meeting
because he believed he was B.R.’s biological father.2 Baugh’s wife, Judith, was pregnant when
B.R. met them. After their initial meeting, B.R. spent a lot of time with Baugh and Judith; they
did fun things together, including hanging out at their trailer home and going to dinner. B.R.
testified that she would see them “every or every other weekend.”
B.R. started spending the night with Baugh and Judith at their trailer in Wylie. The first
couple of times she spent the night, she slept on one of two couches in the living room. One time
when she was sleeping on the couch, Baugh came over and kissed her on the mouth before he left
for work. After that incident, Baugh sexually assaulted B.R. on numerous occasions. B.R. testified
that late at night when she was sleeping on a couch, Baugh would come into the living room, pull
down her pants, and put her penis inside of her in the area where she “pees.” It hurt when Baugh
did this, but B.R. tried to act like she was asleep. When Baugh stopped being inside of her, he
pulled her pants back up, and put the blankets back over her. This happened more than once when
2 Lott testified that she had known Baugh for most of her life and had a sexual relationship with him when she was fourteen or fifteen years old. After many years of no contact, Baugh reached out to Lott. Although Lott knew Baugh was not B.R.’s father, Lott filed a child support application with the Attorney General’s Office regarding Baugh, but later abandoned her claim. Lott testified that she never told B.R. who her father was and never lead her to believe that Baugh was her father. After talking with Baugh and meeting his wife, Lott thought it would be a good idea for B.R. to have a positive male role model in her life and encouraged the relationship. –2– she slept on the couch, and one time after she started sleeping in one of the guest bedrooms. It
also happened two times when she slept with Baugh and Judith in their bed. The first time it
happened in Baugh and Judith’s bed was when they lived in the trailer, and Judith was still
pregnant. The second time was at the new house in Princeton, a couple of weeks after they moved
in.3 When Baugh and Judith moved to the new house, the baby was a little over one month old. In
2016, B.R. reported the sexual abuse to a school counselor, and to her mother and stepfather.
Judith, Baugh’s wife, testified that B.R. did not come to stay with them every week.
According to Judith, B.R. never slept in the same bed with her and Baugh. She also testified that
her son was born on May 9, 2012, when they still lived in the trailer.
S.K. was nineteen years old at the time of trial. Her grandmother is Baugh’s aunt and her
mother is his cousin. S.K.’s grandmother lived down the street from the house S.K. lived in on
Green Acres in Princeton. One day S.K. was at her grandmother’s house, sitting on the couch,
when Baugh came in and sat next to her. He rested his hand on her inner thigh and then moved
his hand under her shorts and put his fingers in her vagina. S.K. kept asking him to stop; Baugh
told her it was okay, and that he knew what he was doing. Although S.K. did not remember exactly
when this happened, the evidence established that the sexual abuse happened before she was
fourteen years old, “a little bit before”4 her mother got married, and the family moved out of the
home on Greenfield Acres. S.K. reported this abuse in the summer of 2017 after she attended a
church camp also attended by B.R. During the camp, the two girls shared that they had been
sexually abused. They discovered that it was Baugh who had abused both of them.
3 B.R. testified that the first time she decided to sleep in their bed was because she thought if she slept in the bedroom with Baugh and his wife, Baugh would not assault her. The second time B.R. slept in their bed because they had just moved to the new house in Princeton and had not yet set up all of their furniture for B.R. to sleep somewhere else. 4 When asked by the prosecutor about the timing of the abuse in relation to her family moving out of the house on Greenfield Acres, the prosecutor asked if it was “just before or did it seem like it was a little bit before?” S.K. replied, “I think it was a little before,” but S.K. did not know how long before. –3– S.K.’s mother, Nancy Shoemaker, testified that Baugh is her cousin and that her mother is
his aunt. When she was growing up, Baugh and his family would come and see her mother often.
They lived at 2508 Greenfield Acres in Princeton from 2006 until Shoemaker got married on May
12, 2012. Her mother lived in the same neighborhood at 2519 Greenfield Acres. After Shoemaker
moved out, her dad lived there for about a month until Baugh and his family moved into the house
in June 2012. Shoemaker testified that her mother always had people at her house until her mother
had her accident on December 1, 2012.
Baugh testified on his own behalf and denied that he ever sexually abused B.R. or S.K.
Baugh testified that he spent a year with B.R., and that she came over almost every two weeks.
When B.R. first started spending the night with him and Judith in the trailer, she slept on the couch,
but they eventually created a guest room for her to stay in. Baugh denied that B.R. every slept in
the bed with him and Judith. He testified he and Judith moved into the Princeton house in June
2012, when his son was a little over a month old. Baugh also testified that he grew up with S.K.’s
mother and knew S.K.’s family very well.
ANALYSIS
In Baugh’s first issue, he contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction
because the State failed to prove that at least thirty days had elapsed between the acts of sexual
abuse about which B.R. and S.K. testified. Baugh argues that B.R. was never asked if the incidents
occurred over a period which was more than twenty-nine days, and it was never established where
Baugh was living when the sexual assault of S.K. happened. Thus, according to Baugh, we are
left with nothing but speculation to prove the acts occurred for the duration required. The State
argues that a rational trier of fact could have found that thirty or more days elapsed between the
Baugh’s sexual abuse of B.R. on the couch in the trailer and his sexual abuse in his bed in the
trailer, as well as the first instance of abuse on the couch and final instance of abuse in Baugh’s
–4– bed at the house in Princeton. The State also argues that the evidence demonstrates that Baugh
sexually abused S.K. thirty or more days before he abused B.R. We agree that the evidence is
sufficient to prove the acts of sexual abuse occurred over a period which was thirty or more days
in duration.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
313 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We assume the fact
finder resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences
in a manner that supports the verdict. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). We defer to the trier of fact’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be
given their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899.
To establish the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child, the State had to prove that
during a period that is thirty or more days in duration, Baugh committed two or more acts of sexual
abuse, regardless of whether the acts of sexual abuse are committed against one or more victims,
when he was seventeen years of age or older, and the victim is a child younger than fourteen years
of age. TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02(b). An act of sexual abuse includes aggravated sexual assault
of a child, and indecency with a child. Id. § 21.02(c)(2), (4). Although the exact dates of the abuse
need not be proven, the offense does require proof that two or more acts of sexual abuse occurred
during a period of thirty days or more. Id. § 21.02(b); Garner v. State, 523 S.W.3d 266, 271 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.). The testimony of a child victim alone is sufficient to support a
conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.07(b)(1);
Garner, 523 S.W.3d at 271.
–5– The combined testimonies of B.R., Baugh, and his wife, Judith, shows the following
regarding the sexual abuse suffered by B.R.:
(1) There were four instances of sexual abuse when B.R. stayed overnight with Baugh and Judith in the trailer – two on the couch, one in the guest bedroom, and one in Baugh’s bed.
(2) When B.R. first met Baugh in September 2011, Judith was pregnant.
(3) The last instance of sexual abuse in the trailer was the incident in Baugh’s bed.
(4) Judith was still pregnant when the sexual abuse occurred in the trailer in Baugh’s bed.
(5) Baugh’s son was born on May 9, 2012.
(6) There was one instance of sexual abuse in Baugh’s bed in the new house in Princeton when B.R. stayed there a couple of weeks after Baugh and his family moved in.
(7) Baugh moved into the house in Princeton when his son was a little over a month old.
(8) B.R. stayed with Baugh and Judith every two weeks.
(9) The sexual abuse did not happen every time B.R. stayed with Baugh and Judith.
Based on this testimony, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that the four
instances of sexual abuse that took place in the trailer were separated by at least two weeks. Thus,
at a minimum, the sexual abuse in the trailer took place over the course of two months. Further,
taking into account the fact that the last instance of sexual abuse in the trailer occurred when Judith
was still pregnant, that the baby was born on May 9, and that the sexual abuse in the house in
Princeton occurred a couple of weeks after the family moved in when the baby was six or seven
weeks old, the trial court could have also reasonably inferred that the sexual abuse in the house in
Princeton took place well over thirty days from the first instance of abuse in the trailer, and well
over thirty days from the last instance of abuse in the trailer.
In addition to the evidence showing that Baugh sexually abused B.R. for a period of time
spanning several months, the combined testimonies of B.R., S.K., Baugh, Judith, and Shoemaker
–6– show that the acts of sexual abuse against B.R. and S.K. also occurred more than thirty days apart.
That testimony indicates the following:
(1) S.K. lived in the house on Greenfield Acres in Princeton from 2006 until May 12, 2012.
(2) Baugh sexually abused S.K. “a little bit before” her family moved out of the house, as opposed to “just before” her family moved.
(3) Baugh’s son was born on May 9, 2012.
(4) Baugh moved into the house in Princeton when his son was a little over a month old.
(5) Baugh sexually abused B.R. in the house in Princeton when B.R. stayed there a couple of weeks after Baugh and his family moved in.
Based on the this testimony, the fact finder could have reasonably inferred that Baugh’s
sexual abuse against S.K. took place no later than May 12, and most likely several days or weeks
before May 12. Thus, if the last possible date Baugh could have sexually abused S.K. was May
12, and the abuse by Baugh against B.R. in the Princeton house occurred a couple of weeks after
they moved into the house in Princeton, it would be reasonable to infer that the abuse against B.R.
in the Princeton house occurred no earlier than June 16 or June 24, well over thirty days past May
12.
Considering the evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence,
we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that the acts of sexual abuse occurred
over a period that was thirty or more days in duration. See Hernandez v. State, No. 05-17-00560-
CR, 2018 WL 2316026, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 22, 2018, pet. ref’d) (affirming conviction
for continuous sexual abuse of a young child or young children and noting that “[w]hile the girls
were unable to provide specific dates for when the abuse occurred, they referred to the sexual
–7– abuse occurring at different houses and their mother was able to provide a timeline of when they
resided at those houses.”). Baugh’s first issue is overruled.5
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 180523F.U05
5 Because we have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support Baugh’s conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child, we need not address the “Ancillary Question” raised in his brief regarding the proper remedy to be applied. –8– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
STEVEN GLENN BAUGH, Appellant On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas No. 05-18-00523-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 401-83488-2017. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Kipness, Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 9th day of July, 2019.
–9–