Argument of Justice O'Connor
Mr. O'Connor: I have the opinion to announce in No. 98-7540, Carmell versus Texas on behalf of Justice Stevens who wrote for the Court.
This case comes on writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals of Texas.
The petitioner was convicted of 15 counts of various sexual offenses.
Under a Texas statute a so-called outcry statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, a conviction could not be sustained on the victim’s testimony alone unless the victim had told someone about the offense within six months of the crime.
This is the so-called outcry, or unless the victim was under 14-years-old at the time of the offense.
In 1993, Texas amended that statute to permit a conviction solely on the victim’s testimony if the victim was under 18 years of age.
Petitioner was convicted on all accounts.
He appealed his convictions arguing that the State had based its case on the victim’s testimony alone.
Yet the victim had not made a timely outcry nor was she under 14-years-old at that time.
The Texas Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument holding his convictions could be sustaining under the 1993 amendment to the statute because the victim fell within the new 18-year-old age requirement.
It further held that retrospectively applying the amendment to offenses committed before its enactment did not violate the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution.
We granted certiorari to resolve the division among lower courts as to whether these kinds of laws violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court today, the court reverses.
In Calder v. Bull Justice Chase explained that the phrase ex post facto laws refers to four types of criminal laws, among them laws that receive less or different testimony then the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender.
Here, because the victim was not under 14 years of age and had not made a timely outcry, the old Texas law in place at the time petitioner committed his offenses required the victim’s testimony plus other corroborating evidence in order to convict him.
The new Texas law however, permitted the petitioner to be convicted on the victim’s testimony alone.
The Court holds that such a law receives less testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender.
Accordingly, the court concludes that convicting petitioner under the amended Texas law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and therefore reverses the judgment below.
Justice Ginsburg has filed a dissenting opinion which the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy and I have joined.
