Brian Douglas Martin v. The State of Texas
173 S.W.3d 463 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior, similar, unadjudicated crime is admissible to rebut a defense of consent in a sexual assault case when the similarities between the prior act and the charged offense establish a distinctive modus operandi, as it is relevant to prove intent and not merely to show character conformity.
Facts:
- Appellant, Martin, met the complainant at a private club and falsely told her he was a deputy in the Polk County Sheriff's Department.
- At Martin's request, the complainant met him several days later at the mobile-home park where he worked.
- Martin took the complainant into an unoccupied mobile home at the park, where they engaged in sexual intercourse.
- The complainant alleged the intercourse was non-consensual, while Martin claimed it was consensual, suggesting she was upset because he married someone else five days later.
- Several months prior to this incident, Martin met another woman through a radio "date line."
- Martin falsely told this other woman that he was a detective with the Liberty County Sheriff's Department.
- Martin later met this second woman at her apartment and sexually assaulted her.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a Texas trial court convicted appellant, Martin, of sexual assault.
- Martin appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, Beaumont.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters, granted Martin's petition for discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), is evidence of a defendant's prior, unadjudicated sexual assault admissible to rebut the defense of consent in a subsequent sexual assault trial where the primary evidence is the conflicting testimony of the defendant and the complainant?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes. Evidence of a prior, similar, unadjudicated sexual assault is admissible under Rule 404(b) to rebut a defense of consent when it is relevant for a purpose other than proving character conformity. The court reasoned that while Rule 404(b) generally bars evidence of prior bad acts to prove a person acted in conformity with their character, it allows such evidence for other purposes like proving intent, plan, or absence of mistake. By claiming the intercourse was consensual, Martin placed his intent—specifically, his intent to engage in the act without consent—directly at issue. The evidence of the prior assault, which involved a nearly identical ruse of impersonating a law enforcement officer to meet a woman who was then sexually assaulted, established a distinctive modus operandi. This pattern of conduct, under the "doctrine of chances," makes it less probable that the charged offense was a consensual encounter and more probable that Martin acted with the requisite criminal intent, a purpose permitted by Rule 404(b).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of the modus operandi exception under Rule 404(b) in sexual assault cases where consent is the central issue. It provides prosecutors with a powerful tool to overcome the challenge of "he said, she said" scenarios by introducing evidence of a defendant's similar past acts. By holding that a consent defense places the defendant's intent at issue, the court opens the door for evidence that might otherwise be excluded as improper character evidence. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants who have engaged in a pattern of similar predatory behavior to isolate the incident at trial and claim it was a misunderstanding or consensual.
Unlock the full brief for Brian Douglas Martin v. The State of Texas