## Facts

- John Patterson was indicted on three counts based on two sexual incidents involving an eleven-year-old child during a single night.
- The indictment included aggravated sexual assault of a child (with separate paragraphs alleging anal penetration and anal contact) and indecency with a child (including by contact and by exposure).
- The jury convicted Patterson on all submitted paragraphs and assessed imprisonment terms ranging from five to thirty-five years across the offenses.
- On appeal, the intermediate court reversed certain indecency convictions on double-jeopardy grounds, including indecency with a child by exposure, while affirming the aggravated sexual assault convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether double jeopardy bars a conviction for indecency with a child by exposure when the exposure occurred before, and during the same continuous course of conduct as, an aggravated sexual assault of a child.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the indecency-with-a-child-by-exposure conviction was not barred by double jeopardy.
- The court reversed the intermediate court’s double-jeopardy ruling as to the exposure count and reinstated the indecency-by-exposure conviction.
- The court left undisturbed other aspects of the intermediate court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Double jeopardy limits a court from imposing greater punishment than the legislature intended; multiple punishments are permitted when the legislature authorizes them.
- When evaluating multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claims, courts apply the “same elements” analysis (Blockburger) as a tool to determine legislative intent and the intended unit of prosecution.
- Indecency with a child by exposure and aggravated sexual assault of a child are separate offenses for double-jeopardy purposes when each requires proof of an element the other does not.
- Temporal and situational proximity (conduct occurring in the same episode) does not merge distinct statutory offenses into a single punishable offense where the statutory elements support separate punishments.

## Conclusion

Because indecency with a child by exposure and aggravated sexual assault of a child contain different required elements and reflect separate legislative targets, the court concluded the legislature authorized separate punishments even when the exposure preceded and occurred within the same episode as the sexual assault, so double jeopardy did not bar the indecency-by-exposure conviction.


Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)