Sexual Offenses

Mark Stevens – San Antonio Criminal Defense Attorney

  Sexual offenses include all forms of illegal sexual activity.  In Texas, the most commonly charged sexual offenses are aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, indecency with a child, indecent exposure, public lewdness, improper relationship between educator and student, prostitution, obscenity, possession of child pornography, online solicitation of a minor, and sexual performance by a child.  Defending sexual offenses is particularly challenging, since most are felonies which expose those convicted to lengthy terms of imprisonment, onerous sexual offender treatment programs, and rigid requirements of sex offender registration.  Mark Stevens has represented persons charged with sexual crimes for more than 30 years, both at trial and on appeal, and he has spoken frequently on this subject to lawyers all over Texas.

Recent Pretrial Dismissals

State v. P.E. (prosecutor dismissed Medina County sexual assault charge)

State v. D.H. (prosecutor dismissed aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child charges)

State v. P.F. (defendant no-billed by Kerr County grand jury for possession of child pornography)

State v. R.A. (indecent exposure charges dismissed)

State v. C.C. (indecency with child charges reduced to class C misdemeanor, dismissed, and expunged from record)

Successful Jury Trials

State v. W.G. (school teacher found not guilty of indecency with a child)

State v. L.A.H. (school teacher found not guilty of sexual assault)

State v. M.M. (nurse found not guilty of sexual assault)

State v. J.C. (jury gives coach probation for sexual assault)

State v. J.S. (jury gives former piano teacher probation for indecency with a child)

State v. R.R. (jury gives former police officer 5 years probation for aggravated sexual assault)

State v. K.H. (juvenile found not guilty of indecency with a child)

State v. J.D. (defendant found not guilty of prostitution)

Appeals

J.S. v. State, 100 S.W. 3d 429 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d)(conviction for indecency with a child reversed and new trial ordered because trial judge disallowed proper cross-examination)

D.C. v. State, 95 S.W. 3d 549 (Tex. App.–Austin 2002, pet. ref’d)(conviction for indecency with a child reversed and new trial ordered because trial court lacked jurisdiction)