The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense, if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the sexual organ of a child younger than six years of age to contact the sexual organ of another person, including himself.

Definitions

Intentionally Causing Contact

A person intentionally causes his sexual organ to contact the sexual organ of another person if it is his conscious objective or desire to cause that contact.

Knowingly Causing Contact

A person knowingly causes his sexual organ to contact the sexual organ of another person if he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause that contact.

[Select one of the following.]

On or about

The indictment alleges that the offense was committed on or about [date]. The state is not required to prove that the alleged offense happened on that exact date. It is sufficient if the state proves that the offense was committed before [date of indictment], the date the indictment was filed.

[or, if raised by the evidence]

On or about

The indictment alleges that the offense was committed on or about [date]. The state is not required to prove that the alleged offense happened on that exact date. It is sufficient if the state proves that the offense was committed after [date of defendant’s seventeenth birthday], the date of the defendant’s seventeenth birthday, and before [date of indictment], the date the indictment was filed.

[Include if raised by the evidence and requested by the defense.]

Evidence of Wrongful Acts Defendant Possibly Committed

During the trial, you heard evidence that the defendant may have committed wrongful acts against [name] not charged in the indictment. [If requested, include description of specific acts.] The state offered the evidence to show the state of mind of the defendant and the child [and/or] the previous and subsequent relationship between the defendant and the child. You are not to consider that evidence at all unless you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, in fact, commit the wrongful act against [name]. Those of you who believe the defendant did the wrongful act may consider it.

Even if you do find that the defendant committed a wrongful act, you may consider this evidence only for the limited purpose[s] described above. You may not consider this evidence to prove that the defendant is a bad person and for this reason was likely to commit the charged offense. In other words, you should consider this evidence only for the specific, limited purpose[s] described above. To consider this evidence for any other purpose would be improper.

[Include if raised by the evidence and requested by the defense.]

Evidence of Another Offense Defendant Possibly Committed

During the trial, you heard evidence that the defendant may have committed [an offense/offenses] [against [name of extraneous victim]/other than the one he is currently accused of in the indictment]. You are not to consider that evidence at all unless you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, in fact, commit [the offense[s] against [name of extraneous victim]/the other offense[s]]. Those of you who believe the defendant committed [that offense/those offenses] may consider it.

You may consider this evidence for any bearing this evidence has on relevant matters, including the character of the defendant and acts performed in conformity with the character of the defendant. Even if you consider it, however, the defendant is not on trial for any offenses not alleged in the indictment. You must determine if the state proved all the elements for the offense alleged in the indictment.

[Include if raised by the evidence and requested by the defense.]

State’s Election of a Particular Incident

The state has offered evidence of more than one incident to prove aggravated sexual assault of a child as alleged in the indictment. The state is required to choose one of those incidents for you to consider in deciding whether it has met its burden of proof on that particular occasion. The incident that the state has chosen is [insert specific incident, e.g., the first time that [name] testified that she remembered the defendant’s sexual organ contacting her sexual organ]. This is the only incident for which the defendant is on trial [in this case/in count [number]]. You are to confine your deliberations to deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child on that particular occasion. You cannot find the defendant guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child based on an occurrence at any other time or place other than the incident that the state has chosen.

Also, you may not consider evidence of any other incident for any purpose unless you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such incident occurred. Even then, you may consider it only for the specific, limited purpose of determining [insert limited purpose, e.g., the defendant’s intent].

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date], intentionally or knowingly caused his sexual organ to contact the sexual organ of [name]; and
2. [name] was at the time a child younger than six years of age.

[Select one of the following. Choose the second option if incident unanimity has been raised by the evidence and there has been no request for election.]

You must all agree on elements 1 and 2 listed above.

With regard to element 2, it does not matter whether the defendant knew the child was younger than six years old at the time of the offense.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or both of elements 1 and 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the two elements listed above, you must [find the defendant “guilty”/next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense of medical care].

[or]

The state has presented evidence of more than one incident to prove sexual assault as alleged [in the indictment/in count [number]]. To reach a guilty verdict [in this case/in count [number]], you must all agree that the state has proved elements 1 and 2 listed above, and you must also all agree that these elements occurred in the same incident. While it is permissible for you all to agree on more than one incident, to reach a guilty verdict in the case, you must all agree that these elements occurred in the same incident or incidents.

With regard to element 2, it does not matter whether the defendant knew the child was younger than six years old at the time of the offense.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or both of elements 1 and 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the two elements listed above, and you all agree on the same incident or incidents when these elements occurred, you must [find the defendant “guilty”/next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense of medical care].

[Insert defense if raised by the evidence; see CPJC 21.31. Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]