Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Richard Lee Roberts, A/K/A Frederick John Frey v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-92-00203-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 7, 1992; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Richard Lee Roberts, also known as Frederick John Frey, was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault by a jury in the District Court of Bell County, Texas. The court sentenced him to thirty-six years in prison, considering a prior felony conviction. The eight-year-old victim testified that Roberts made her perform sexual acts, demonstrating his actions using anatomically correct dolls. In his appeal, Roberts argued that the conviction lacked sufficient evidence due to the absence of corroborating medical testimony or witness accounts. However, Texas law permits a conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child based solely on the victim's testimony, which was deemed adequate to support the jury's verdict. Roberts also contested the prosecutor's cross-examination regarding his previous conviction for murder, arguing it was irrelevant to the guilt phase of the trial. The prosecutor's questioning suggested that Roberts was aware of the increased punishment he faced, which was allowed by the court as it pertained to his motive to testify. The court overruled Roberts' objections, reinforcing the legality of the prosecutor's approach. The appellate court ultimately upheld the trial court's decisions, overruling all points of error raised by Roberts. Appellant argues that it was erroneous for the prosecutor to question him about details of a prior offense during the guilt stage of a bifurcated trial, where such inquiries are typically inappropriate per Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07. Generally, details of prior convictions are inadmissible unless the defendant voluntarily testifies, allowing for impeachment. Appellant did not object to the initial mention of punishment, and the only detail about the earlier conviction disclosed over objection concerned the number of witnesses present during that crime. Even if there was an error in overruling the objections, it was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In a separate point, appellant contends the district court erred by allowing the jury to hear evidence of his flight from prosecution. He fled to California two days before trial, was later arrested after being featured on a television program. Most testimony about his flight was admitted without objection, and when he did object, he claimed it constituted an unadjudicated offense of bail jumping. However, evidence of flight is permissible as it can imply guilt, regardless of its relation to other crimes. The court correctly overruled his objection regarding this evidence. All points of error raised by appellant are overruled, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.