Speights v. Texas (original by judge yeary)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of two counts of indecency with a child. On appeal he contended that his conviction for indecency with a child by exposure improperly subjected him to double jeopardy. The court of appeals agreed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals surmised that court held, categorically, that that the offense of indecency by exposure “would necessarily be subsumed” within the offense of indecency by contact. The Court granted the State Prosecuting Attorney’s (SPA) petition for discretionary review to decide whether, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, indecency by exposure was “necessarily subsumed” within indecency by contact when, during the same incident, the defendant first exposes himself and masturbates in front of the child victim and then causes the child victim to touch his penis. Finding no Double Jeopardy violation, the Court reversed to court of appeals to the extent that it rendered a judgment of acquittal for indecency with a child by exposure, and affirmed in all other respects.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.