Taureaus Alvaro Maxwell v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00156-CR

TAUREAUS ALVARO MAXWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023F00129

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Morriss,* JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens

_______________
*Josh R. Morriss, III, Retired, Chief Justice, Sitting by Assignment
MEMORANDUM OPINION

A Cass County jury found Taureaus Alvaro Maxwell guilty of indecency with a child by

contact and assessed a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment with a $10,000.00 fine. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a). In his sole point of error on appeal, Maxwell argues that the

evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt. Because we find the

evidence legally sufficient to support Maxwell’s conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

in this case.

Maxwell also appeals from three more convictions for indecency with a child by contact

in cause numbers 06-24-00157-CR through 06-24-00159-CR, and four convictions for improper

relationship between educator and student in cause numbers 06-24-00160-CR through 06-24-

00163-CR. Maxwell filed a single, consolidated brief covering all of his appeals. Because

Maxwell raises the same legal sufficiency complaint in all of his appeals, we discuss the facts

related to all of those appeals in this main opinion.

I. Factual Background

The State’s allegations stemmed from four separate acts of inappropriate touching of the

same child, Josh, who was fourteen at the time of the offenses. 1 At trial, Josh testified that

Maxwell was his freshman health science teacher at Atlanta High School. According to Josh,

Maxwell’s desk was at the back of the classroom. Although the students’ desk arrangement

changed, they were either in rows facing the front of the classroom towards the whiteboard or

were arranged in groups so the students would face each other. Josh testified that Maxwell was

1
We use pseudonyms to protect the identity of any minors at the time of the offense. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10.
2
really friendly and that they became friends on Snapchat. Even so, Josh felt singled out in

Maxwell’s class because he was called to the teacher’s desk in the back of the classroom three or

four times a week.

Josh, a football player, testified that the first incident occurred in October 2022, “towards

the end of football season.” Josh said that Maxwell called him to his desk to talk about his

schoolwork. Josh said that Maxwell put a piece of paper in front of him and “started touching

[him] on [his] thigh and eventually moved towards [his] privates.” According to Josh, Maxwell

made a cupping motion on his genitals on top of his clothing while “making some noises like

low noises.” Josh said he was shocked and speechless and tried to push Maxwell’s hand off of

him. Even so, Maxwell continued the touching until Josh quietly told him to stop. Josh said he

was too embarrassed to say anything loudly and went back to his seat like nothing happened

because he did not want the other students to know what happened.

The second incident took place a few weeks after the first. Josh testified that he was

missing work from Maxwell’s class and was called back to Maxwell’s desk again. Josh testified

that Maxwell touched his genitals again over his clothing, making Josh question why that was

happening to him. That time, Josh told his best friend, Cameron, but asked Cameron not to tell

anyone because of the embarrassment.

A third touching happened three weeks to one month after the second. Josh testified that,

on the third occasion, Maxwell waited until the bell rang, asked Josh to stay after class to discuss

his poor grades, and locked Josh in the classroom after all the other students had left. Josh said

Maxwell pinned him to the wall using his arm and started touching his privates. Josh testified

3
that he tried to push Maxwell off but that Maxwell told him to be quiet and kept gripping his

genitals with such force that they hurt for a few days. Once again, Josh left the classroom after

the incident and said nothing.

As for the fourth touching, Josh said it occurred in December while the class was

watching a movie with the lights off. Josh said that, once again, Maxwell called him to his desk

because he was missing work. Josh testified that Maxwell reached over him as if he were

helping with his schoolwork but put his hand on Josh’s thigh and moved up to cup his genitals

over his clothing. That time, Josh got up and walked back to his desk. After class, Josh told

Cameron and another football player, David, and eventually told his mother.

Cameron testified that he was in Maxwell’s class with Josh and that Josh was called to

the back of the classroom three or four times a week. Cameron testified that Josh had confided

in him.

David shared that he was the first to report Maxwell to the school after Josh confided that

Maxwell had touched him inappropriately. David also reported his own interactions with

Maxwell. According to David, Maxwell had given him a sticky note with his Snapchat name on

it around October 2022. Maxwell told David that David would add him on Snapchat if he trusted

him. After David did so, Maxwell sent him a snapchat message saying, “If only you were as

sweet as your pictures.” David testified that Maxwell also sent messages like, “Hey, honey” and

“Do you love me?” David, who felt uncomfortable, testified that Maxwell’s messages escalated

and that Maxwell sent messages saying, “Take those clothes off,” and “I want videos of the one

when you’re out of the shower.” David secretly recorded a conversation with Maxwell where

4
they were talking about Maxwell “asking to see [David’s] penis in the picture” and, according to

David, Maxwell said that, if David sent the picture, Maxwell could then trust him.

Soon, other children started making reports against Maxwell. Jack testified that Maxwell

was a well-liked teacher and that he added him on Snapchat. According to Jack, Maxwell was

inappropriate on several occasions, including when he sent a message saying, “Let me see your

wiener, baby.” Jack, who said the message was weird and scary, reported it to his friend Robert,

who was also friends with Maxwell on Snapchat. Jack testified that, one day, when walking to

class, Maxwell “grabbed [his] shirt and held [him] there for a second and eventually grabbed

[his] privates.” Jack was sure that it was not an accident and reported it to his friend Khris, who

testified that he was shocked and surprised when Jack said Maxwell had grabbed him in the

crotch.

Robert testified that he saw the message Maxwell sent to Jack on Jack’s phone and also

testified that Maxwell had asked him “to send pictures of [his] stuff, private area.” Robert texted

back, “You first,” as a joke and received no response. Robert also showed his chats with

Maxwell to his friend, Corbin, and Corbin confirmed that Maxwell had sent Robert a message

saying, “Don’t be scared. Show me your wiener.” Robert testified that Maxwell deleted him on

Snapchat after Robert was called to the principal’s office to discuss the inappropriate messages.

Hallie Thompson, a family advocate with the Texarkana Children’s Advocacy Center,

interviewed several Atlanta High School students after their reports. According to Thompson,

“Josh . . . made an outcry of four different incidences of being touched by a teacher,” Jack made

5
an outcry about being touched and being asked to send inappropriate pictures, and David said

Maxwell asked him to send inappropriate pictures of private body parts.

Thompson testified that Josh said he was first touched by Maxwell toward the end of

October, which was also toward the end of football season, that the second incident was three or

four weeks later, that the third time was two weeks after the second time, and that the last time

was before spring break. Josh told Thompson that three of the incidents happened in the

classroom when the rest of the class was there.

According to Thompson, the first incident happened when Maxwell called Josh to his

desk to talk about a vocabulary paper. Josh told Thompson that he sat next to Maxwell and that

Maxwell’s hand touched his genitals and testicles. Thompson said that Josh told Maxwell to

stop, but he did not, and that Josh walked back to his desk after the incident while the rest of the

class was working. Thompson said that the second time, Josh said Maxwell slid his hand on

Josh’s thigh and, when Josh slapped Maxwell’s hand, Maxwell said, “[I]f you’re my friend,

you’ll let me do it.” Josh told Thompson that Maxwell touched his genitals again while the class

was working. As for the third time, Josh said that it happened after class. Josh reported that

Maxwell grabbed his hoodie and used his arm to push Josh up against the wall. According to

Thompson, Josh told Maxwell to stop, but Maxwell pushed him against the wall and touched his

genitals. Thompson testified that the last and fourth incident happened in class while the class

was watching a movie. Thompson said Josh told her that Maxwell made Josh sit next to him and

touched his testicles while whispering, “[Y]ou have to trust me.”

6
Judy Townsend, an investigator with the Department of Family and Protective Services,

testified that “one of the students had made an outcry that he had been sexually and

inappropriately touched in a classroom and supposedly had been touched in front of the students

and the classroom of Mr. Maxwell.” According to Townsend, Maxwell initially denied having

contact with students on social media like Snapchat or Facebook. Later in the interview,

Townsend testified that Maxwell admitted that “he had friended some students on Snapchat.”

After hearing this evidence, the jury found Maxwell guilty of the allegations against him.

II. Standard of Review

“In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to

the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hartsfield v.

State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d)). “Our rigorous [legal

sufficiency] review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323

S.W.3d at 917–18 (Cochran, J., concurring)). “We examine legal sufficiency under the direction

of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve

conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts

to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App.

2007))).

7
“Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined

by a hypothetically correct jury charge.” Id. at 298 (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). “The ‘hypothetically correct’ jury charge is ‘one that accurately sets

out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of

proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the

particular offense for which the defendant was tried.’” Id. (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240).

III. Analysis

A person commits indecency with a child if he “engages in sexual contact with” a child

“with intent to arouse or gratify” his sexual desire. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a). The

term “sexual contact” includes the “touching through clothing, of . . . any part of the genitals of a

child.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(c)(1). In its indictment in this cause, the State alleged

that, on or about October 26, 2022, Maxwell engaged in sexual contact with Josh, a child, with

the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire, by touching Josh’s genitals. In cause number 06-

23-00157-CR, the State alleged that Maxwell engaged in sexual contact with Josh by touching

the child’s genitals with the required intent on or about November 18, 2022. In cause number

06-23-00158-CR, the State alleged that Maxwell committed indecency with a child by contact on

or about December 1, 2022, and in cause number 06-23-00159-CR, the State alleged the offense

occurred again on or about March 17, 2023.

Here, Maxwell does not argue that the evidence is insufficient to support any of the

essential elements of the four alleged offenses. Indeed, the “testimony of a child victim alone is

sufficient to support a conviction for . . . indecency with a child,” and Josh testified about four

8
different times when Maxwell touched his genitals. See Scott v. State, 202 S.W.3d 405, 408

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.07).

According to Josh, Maxwell made low noises during the first incident. From that evidence, and

the evidence involving Maxwell’s inappropriate conduct with other children, the jury was free to

determine that Maxwell engaged in the sexual contact of Josh, a child, with the intent to arouse

or gratify his sexual desire, and Maxwell’s brief does not dispute this.

Instead, Maxwell’s only argument is as follows: “The Jury, to find Appellant guilty,

would have had to believe that Appellant . . . made inappropriate contact with [Josh] at a time

and place which would be rife with actual or potential witnesses,” i.e., in front of the class. Yet,

that is exactly what the jury did, and doing so was within its purview as the fact-finder. Because

the jury was free to believe Josh’s testimony, and because the evidence established the required

elements of all four offenses, we overrule Maxwell’s legal sufficiency point in this case and in

his companion cause numbers 06-23-00157-CR through 06-23-00159-CR.

As for Maxwell’s remaining companion cases, a public high school employee commits

the offense of an improper relationship between educator and student if the employee “engages

in sexual contact . . . with a person who is enrolled in a public . . . secondary school at which the

employee works.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.12(a)(1) (Supp.). As relevant here, “[i]f

conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another

section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.” TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.12(c) (Supp.). Here, the State prosecuted Maxwell for indecency with a

child, as shown above, and also chose to prosecute him for the same conduct under Section

9
21.12. See In re Shaw, 204 S.W.3d 9, 19 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (overruling a

double-jeopardy challenge to the statute).

Accordingly, in cause number 06-23-00160-CR, the State alleged that, on or about

October 26, 2022, Maxwell, while

an employee of a public . . . school, namely Atlanta Independent School District,
engage[d] in sexual contact with Josh . . . (pseudonym), hereafter styled the
complainant, a person who was enrolled in Atlanta Independent School District
by touching the genitals of the complainant with the intent to arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of the defendant.

The State alleged that Maxwell committed the same conduct on or about November 18, 2022, in

cause number 06-23-00161-CR; on or about December 1, 2022, in cause number 06-23-00162-

CR; and on or about March 17, 2023, in cause number 06-23-00163-CR.

Here, it was undisputed that Maxwell worked at Atlanta High School and that Josh was

also enrolled there. The jury heard ample evidence from Josh, and others, that demonstrated

Maxwell committed sexual contact by touching Josh on his genitals on four occasions. Although

Maxwell’s sole argument questions whether the jury could have found that three of the four

offenses occurred during class, Josh’s testimony supported the jury’s conclusions that three

offenses occurred while the students were either working or watching a movie in the dark.

Because the jury was free to believe the evidence supporting the four separate instances of sexual

contact between Maxwell and his student, we overrule Maxwell’s legal sufficiency challenges in

cause numbers 06-24-00160-CR through 06-24-00163-CR.

10
IV. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 11, 2025
Date Decided: July 14, 2025

Do Not Publish

11