Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Texas Clearly accepts that Jurisdiction is a valid defense

The state of Texas is not arguing a fine point of law or a gross mutilation and misunderstanding of it, as blogging scoffers tried to palm off on us during the last year and a half.
Clearly Texas thinks if they cannot get the jury to accept that the crime occurred in Texas, there was no crime:
From Brooke's "Twitter" page - "Defense says most documents or photos about Raymond and other women/children are irrelevant to crime charge and prejudicial."
To which the prosecution replied:
"(Texas) says such documents help make jurisdiction argument and thus are relevant."
And there you have it. If Texas argues it must admit evidence for the sole reason that it establishes where Raymond Jessop was when his "Bride" (now an adult) became pregnant, then Texas is clearly saying if it can't establish in at least general terms, the location of both parents in Texas (assuming as I do that Raymond is the father), then the whole trial is moot.


Sphere: Related Content

8 comments:

Ron in Houston said...

Well, technically, jurisdiction is not a defense. It is a bar to him being prosecuted by a Texas court.

Now, if you read my unsubstantiated and "poopy headed" blog, you might be able to understand how Texas may be able to slam dunk that issue by showing that the child was born in Texas.

The Pharisee said...

Ron, if they were in Mexico, it's a defense. It is a defense for instance in Montana, on the charge of Statutory Rape, that the offender did not know his "victim" was underage. If it can be shown that this is so, the charge is dropped. I know of one such case where the "victim" clearly stated she lied about her age and the man got off the charge as a result.

For Raymond to have "sexually abused a child" he had to be in Texas, because if, hypothetically, he was in Mexico, there was no crime.

duaneh1 said...

you might be able to understand how Texas may be able to slam dunk that issue by showing that the child was born in Texas.

Like I asked you on your blog Ron, If a 30 year old NM resident has sex with a 16 year old
in NM, she moves to Texas and gives birth, can he be charged with sexual assault if he happens to cross the border and enter Texas?

The Pharisee said...

If Texas "Slam Dunks" the issue, that's pretty much what they're doing. Powering over the opposition and stuffing the ball.

They will have committed a foul though, in doing it. The jury may well accept that because what Raymond Jessop appears to have done being a crime in Texas, he should be convicted in Texas.

The problem is always that if you move, it's not a crime, so we do have to know where Mr. Jessop was, and the Jury should be instructed that if they have reasonable doubt that Raymond was in Texas, that they cannot convict.

Ron in Houston said...

Duane

That's actually a variation of what you asked on my blog.

Under the "conduct or result that is an element" provision it doesn't matter if it was a crime in the other jurisdiction. So long as a child was born here, Texas would have jurisdiction and Texas law would apply.

The Pharisee said...

Ron, that's happy horse poo.

Ron in Houston said...

Pharisee

The only happy horse poo is you thinking you have any idea what you're talking about. COWARD.

The Pharisee said...

Spoken by an anonymous person, I'd have to say that's always funny Ron.

I don't care what you think the law says, I actually don't care what it says (supposing you are right).

You can't make it a crime by moving across state borders. If it's legal to smoke pot in Oregon, but not in Texas, you can't convict me of using pot in Oregon, IN TEXAS.

What you suggest is that I could knock up a 15 year old girl in Mexico, who then moves to Texas, and as I am traveling from my home in Florida to California, on I-10, I could be arrested for sexually abusing a minor.