Jason B. Jackson v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-14-00614-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 18, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jason B. Jackson appeals against the State of Texas following his conviction for sexually assaulting David Coronado on or about June 20, 2012. Jackson, who had a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance, opted for a bench trial, waiving his right to a jury trial. The trial court found him guilty on July 2, 2014, and sentenced him to 17 years in prison. Jackson's appeal is supported by his attorney, Windi Akins Pastorini, who asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The case involves key testimonies, including that of Shirley Evans, who reported seeing a man at her gate pleading for help, claiming he had been raped. Evans called 911 and noted that it was dark and she could not confirm whether the man had any injuries, despite his claims. Jackson signed a written notice of appeal, and the trial court acknowledged his right to appeal. No motion for a new trial was filed. The brief outlines various procedural components, including a list of interested persons and an index of authorities, with references to relevant Texas case law.

Mrs. Evans's testimony was followed by Officer Marvin Waggoner's account, who responded to a 911 call and encountered David Coronado, described as very shaken and nervous. Coronado reported being raped but was unsure of the exact location. He was subsequently transported to the hospital by paramedics. During cross-examination, Coronado stated the suspect drove away from the scene.

The State then called Amanda Sappington, a sexual assault nurse (SANE), who conducted a medical examination of Coronado. Her medical reports were admitted as evidence despite defense objections. Coronado recounted that he was sexually assaulted by an individual named Jason, detailing the nature of the abuse and expressing fear during the incident. The examination revealed fresh tears consistent with sexual assault, though SANE noted similar findings could indicate consensual sex. Various swabs for DNA testing were collected from Coronado.

Gabriel Vasquez from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office collected buccal swabs from the accused, Jason Jackson, and submitted these to the crime lab. India Henry, a criminalist, confirmed the presence of semen in the anal swabs and indicated that DNA extracts were sent to Bode Technology Group for analysis. Forensic scientist Amanda Mendoza determined that the DNA from the anal swab matched Jason Jackson's profile.

Criminal investigator Robert Wieners conducted follow-up investigations, confirming that Jason Jackson owned the house where the assault occurred. A photo lineup was created, and Coronado identified Jackson as his assailant.

Officer Wieners and Officer Jimeno visited Jackson's residence after positively identifying him as a potential suspect in a sexual assault investigation. Upon arrival, they explained the situation to Jackson, who was asked to step outside due to the presence of others in the house. During the conversation, Jackson denied being homosexual and expressed his desire to consult a lawyer before providing a DNA sample. Officer Wieners provided his contact information for a future discussion if Jackson chose to make a formal statement with legal representation.

The complainant, David Coronado, later testified that he met Jackson at a gay bar, J.R.'s, where they conversed before going to Jackson's home. Jackson bought drinks and led Coronado to his darkened room, where he began to engage in sexual acts against Coronado's will, despite Coronado's pleas to stop. Coronado described being frightened and physically assaulted, including Jackson attempting to force oral sex and taking $60 from him. After a struggle, Coronado escaped, ran for help, and denied that the encounter was consensual. However, the record indicated that Coronado had previously visited the gay bar, was with a friend, and did not attempt to leave Jackson's house despite expressing fear.

Upon arriving at Jackson's house, Coronado accompanied him to the bedroom without protest. Jackson began to remove Coronado's clothing, which remained intact, indicating no resistance or forced removal. Coronado alleged that Jackson slapped him twice, but witnesses observed no injuries. When Coronado prepared to leave, Jackson did not attempt to stop him. Coronado was aware that he could qualify for lawful status as a victim of a violent crime and was seeking a U-Visa. Jackson chose not to testify during the trial, and both sides subsequently rested.

In closing arguments, the defense argued that the encounter was consensual, supported by testimony from a SANE examiner that injuries to Coronado were consistent with consensual activity, along with the condition of his clothing. The defense claimed these facts created reasonable doubt for Jackson's acquittal. Conversely, the prosecution characterized Jackson as a predator who targeted Coronado, describing how he isolated him and asserting that the evidence demonstrated a sexual assault.

The trial judge found Jackson guilty of sexual assault. During the punishment phase, the prosecutor introduced a prior conviction for possessing a controlled substance, to which Jackson pleaded "True." Coronado testified about the emotional and psychological impact of the assault, expressing fear and anxiety in social situations and at work. The defense did not present evidence or call witnesses, and both sides closed their cases. The defense requested a lower sentence, while the state sought 35 years. Ultimately, the judge sentenced Jackson to 17 years in prison. The defense contended that the trial court abused its discretion by finding Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case at hand is characterized as a “he said, he did not say” scenario, where the State's claim of sexual assault by Jason Jackson against David Coronado relies solely on Coronado's testimony asserting non-consent. However, Coronado's credibility is questioned, as his testimony fails to meet the necessary burden of proof required in criminal cases, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals has clarified this standard, emphasizing the need for evidence that is convincing enough to influence personal decision-making. While the inclusion of definitions of reasonable doubt in jury instructions has been debated, the essence remains that the court must assess whether the evidence presented was sufficiently robust to meet this high standard, especially in a bench trial.

Coronado's account is deemed implausible, raising serious doubts about his credibility. He admitted to visiting a gay bar late at night with a friend, indicating a search for sexual encounters rather than mere social interaction. This context suggests that the intent behind his visit aligns more with seeking a hookup, challenging the notion that he was merely looking to meet people. Thus, the evidence does not support a conviction based on the required legal standard.

Coronado recounted a 15-minute conversation with Jackson, a stranger, after which he agreed to go to Jackson’s home for drinks, seeking companionship. The prosecutor characterized Jackson as a "predator" and Coronado as "prey," a portrayal deemed implausible given the context. Coronado described feeling frightened upon arrival at Jackson's dark home but did not attempt to leave. Instead, he walked hand-in-hand with Jackson to the bedroom, where Jackson undressed him and began sexual acts despite Coronado's requests to stop. This behavior contradicted Coronado's earlier willingness to accompany a stranger and suggested he was complicit in the encounter.

Coronado testified that Jackson penetrated him and later attempted oral sex, with inconsistencies in his accounts to police and during the trial regarding details of the encounter, including Jackson's alleged violence. Notably, witnesses observed no signs of physical injury on Coronado. He claimed that Jackson's actions indicated a continued state of arousal, which raised skepticism. Coronado also implied that Jackson may have drugged him, a claim he did not report during the initial investigation, undermining his credibility. Overall, the details presented indicated significant doubts about Coronado's reliability as a witness, failing to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coronado's claim of forcible sexual assault is questioned due to contradictions in his testimony, which suggested a consensual encounter. His motivation for the allegation appears to stem from his immigration status, as he seeks a U-Visa as a victim of violent crime, specifically aggravated sexual assault. The only physical evidence presented was minor anal tears, which could result from consensual sex or a hard stool, failing to substantiate the claim of force. Witness testimonies from a neighbor and an investigating officer noted Coronado's emotional state but did not provide sufficient proof of assault, as such emotional responses can occur in various domestic disputes. The evidence does not meet the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the trial court incorrectly upheld the State's case. Jason Jackson requests the court to review the evidence and reverse the trial court's decision, granting a new trial. The document concludes with a certification of service by the appellant's counsel.