Richard Charles Owings, Jr. v. The State of Texas

A jury convicted appellant, Richard Charles Owings, Jr., of the first-degree

felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed his punishment

at thirty years’ confinement.1 In two issues, appellant contends that the trial court

erred by (1) allowing the State to cross-examine him about the underlying facts of

his prior conviction for aggravated robbery and (2) refusing to require the State to

elect which of the instances of sexual assault presented in the trial testimony it would

rely upon for a conviction. On original submission, a majority of the panel reversed

appellant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial

court committed reversible error by failing to require the State to elect a specific

instance of sexual assault. Because the majority remanded the case for a new trial,

it did not reach appellant’s first issue.

The State subsequently filed a petition for discretionary review. The Court of

Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the majority, holding that the trial court’s

error in failing to require an election was harmless. See Owings v. State, — S.W.3d

—, No. PD-1184-16, 2017 WL 4973823, at *8 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 1, 2017). The

Court of Criminal Appeals therefore remanded the case to this Court to address

appellant’s remaining issue regarding the State’s cross-examination of appellant

concerning the underlying facts of his prior conviction.

We affirm.