Issues Granted - 12/16/09

On December 16, 2009, the CCA granted discretionary review on the following issues:

PD-0969-09, Julian Mars McKithan v. State: The CCA granted McKithan's petition for discretionary review without oral argument in this aggravated sexual assault out of Harris County on the following issue:

Was the Court of Appeals correct in saying assault – offensive touching – is not allowed when the indictment says the defendant used force and violence against the complainant?

Here's a link to the underlying opinion. Here's a link to the underlying case info.

PD-1069-09 & PD-1070-09, Samuel Scott v. State: The CCA granted the State's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this harassment case out of Bexar County on the following issues:

1. Are subsections (a)(4) and (a)(7) of Texas Penal Code § 42.07 (Texas' Harassment Statute) unconstitutionally vague?

2. Do subsections (a)(4) and (a)(7) of Texas Penal Code § 42.07 (Texas' Harassment Statute) implicate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

3. Are the term "repeated" and the phrase "in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another," which are both contained within Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(4) and (a)(7), unconstitutionally vague?

4. Did the State's allegation that appellant left "voice mail messages" implicate Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) in this case, and does that phrase necessarily fall within the definition of "electronic communications" found at Texas Penal Code § 42.07(b)(1)?

5. If some part of Texas Penal Code § 42.07 (Texas' Harassment Statute) is unconstitutionally vague, did the Court of Appeals err by declaring it vague and acquitting appellant instead of applying a more narrow construction to the statute to avoid the alleged vagueness?

6. Has the Court of Appeals improperly determined that because subsections (a)(4) and (a)(7) of Texas Penal Code § 42.07 (Texas' Harassment Statute) allegedly implicate the First Amendment and might curtail protected speech those subsections are vague when the proper question should have been whether the subsections are overbroad?

Here's a link to the court of appeals opinion, and here's another one. Here's a link to the court of appeals case info, and here's another one.