Posted on 07/18/2005 5:22:52 AM PDT by QwertyKPH
Upholding a conviction of “aggravated sexual assault of a child,” on July 8, the Texas Court of Appeals rejected an HIV-positive defendant’s claim that he was “overcharged” for the offense because his penis and body fluids do not constitute “deadly weapons” within the meaning of the Texas Penal Code.
Defendant Jimi Hofmann learned that he was HIV-positive in 1992. The incidents leading to criminal charges against him took place ten years later.
During 2002, Hofmann initiated unprotected sexual contact with his daughter, A.K., then about age 15, telling her that he was not actually her biological father, although he was in fact her father. The opinion does not indicate whether A.K. had any knowledge about her father’s HIV-status, but said that although she was below the age of consent, she did agree to have sex.
Hofmann’s activities came to the attention of law enforcement after he took advantage of a visit to a motel room to initiate group sex involving himself, his daughter and C.H., a son by a woman who is not the girl’s mother. C.H. later told his mother about Hofmann encouraging him to have sex with his half-sister.
There is no indication that A.K. contracted HIV as a result of sexual activity with her father.
Hofmann was charged with aggravated sexual assault of A.K., and convicted of the crime. Under the statute, use of a deadly weapon is an aggravating circumstance. A deadly weapon is defined as “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury,” according to Texas statute.
On appeal, Hofmann argued that he should not have been charged with the aggravated offense, because his penis and bodily fluids do not constitute deadly weapons, despite his HIV-positive status.
According to Justice Bea Ann Smith, “Prosecution witness Robert Kaspar explained the nature of HIV and its transmission and linked the medical facts to the plain language of the statute. Jimi Hofmann made no attempt at trial, and makes no attempt now, to contradict Kaspar’s testimony. He argues instead that the State’s reading of the deadly weapon provision is unreasonably broad and that the legislature’s only intent was to punish the use of violence in sexual assault, not to increase criminal penalties for the victims of a disease.”
Rejecting this argument, Smith cited a 1997 Texas appeals court decision that upheld the conviction of an HIV-positive man for aggravated assault of an HIV-negative woman, which stated that “the jury could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally or knowingly used his penis and bodily fluids in manner capable of causing death to [the victim] by infecting her with HIV.”
In neither case, did rulings consider to what degree HIV remains a deadly disease, and Smith quoted another judge as observing that the degree to which the deadly weapon definition “has fallen prey to ‘mission creep’ into areas unforeseen and probably unintended by the Legislature,” the Legislature was best situated to consider tightening up the language.
Hoffman could appeal his sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’s highest criminal appeals court.
—Arthur S. Leonard
He needs to be gone from Earth.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Amen.
What a sicko.
Off with his head. (both of them)
Exactly.
Too messy. Perhaps a toxic gas instead?
Just hand him over to the Saudis.
Nobody listens.
But ya gotta admit,It's great breakfast table talk.
Incest is just fine with the Saudis read my tagline!!
His death should be exceptionally slow and extraordinarily painful, with him kept conscious as much as possible as long as possible.
we were discussing issues similar the other day. a friend was making mention of the "life threatening" situations that allow use of deadly force. due to the fact that a rapist may very well be HIV+, rape is considered a "life threatening" situation, and is starting to also be charged as "assault with a deadly weapon"
Bring back the lost art of impaling? :^)
While I agree with the result, I am suspicious of the reasoning. Would someone with pneumonia who coughs on you be assault with a deadly weapon? Would it turn on whether it was involuntary?
Better this guy serve his sentense for incest then getting into this. This case shows the limits of leaving everything to the lawmakers.
The little one first, by razor blade and blowtorch!
I have faith in the jury system and believe that intent would be a factor. Coughing is usually involuntary but covering one's mouth while coughing isn't.
I think that rape is considered a life-threatening situation regardless of HIV status. Think about it, how is a rapist to subdue a victim without threatening the victim's life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
