Appeals court affirms life sentence for sexual assault

A higher court Thursday affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a Texarkana, Texas, man found guilty earlier this year of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.

Randal Lee Wright, 57, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child by a jury in April and sentenced to life in prison at the end of a trial before 202nd District Judge John Tidwell. On appeal, Wright argued that Tidwell allowed the jury to hear testimony during the guilt or innocence phase of trial that should have been excluded, that Tidwell erred by qualifying a child witness in front of the jury, and that the judge allowed the state to lead witnesses during their testimonies.

In an opinion handed down Thursday, the 6th District Court of Appeals headquartered in Texarkana rejected all of Wright’s arguments and upheld his conviction and sentence. Specifically the appeal took issue with testimony concerning DNA evidence admitted during the guilt or innocence phase.

Wright’s DNA was found on the girl’s chest during a sexual assault examination performed the morning after she was attacked by Wright at his home Sept. 20, 2016. The girl was spending the night with a 15-year-old friend who is related to Wright and whom Wright is also alleged to have sexually abused.

Wright argued that because the state was alleging vaginal penetration, testimony concerning DNA found on the girl’s chest amounted to testimony of another, separate offense. Tidwell denied a defense motion to exclude the evidence based on those grounds and the defense did not make a new objection when the DNA evidence was introduced during the trial. The appellate court ruled that because there was not a new objection made to the evidence during the trial, the defense had not preserved the issue for appeal purposes.

Wright’s appeal also took issue with questions the judge asked a child witness in front of the jury at the beginning of her time on the witness stand. Tidwell asked the girl if she knows the difference between a truth and a lie and asked her to promise to tell the truth. Wright argued that Tidwell made a statement that the “witness knows the difference between a truth and a lie.”

“The record establ i s h e s otherwise; the trial court made no such comment . W i thou t WRIGHT pointing to

any statement made by the trial court, Wright also argues that the court commented on the weight of the evidence. Again the trial court made no statement with respect to the child’s credibility,” the opinion states.

The higher court also rejected Wright’s third and final appellate argument that Tidwell allowed the state to lead a witness. If Wright wants to continue his appeal, he can take his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

At trial, witnesses testified that Wright was drinking the night of the assault and had offered alcohol to the girls.