What is "sexual misconduct" under Texas law?
Search the Texas Penal Code for "sexual misconduct" and you will find nothing. The phrase is shorthand used by police, schools, HR departments, and news coverage for a cluster of real offenses — most often indecency with a child (§ 21.11), sexual assault (§ 22.011), or aggravated sexual assault (§ 22.021).
Search the Texas Penal Code for "sexual misconduct" and you will find nothing. The phrase is shorthand used by police reports, school districts, HR departments, and news coverage for a cluster of real offenses, and which statute the State picks determines everything that follows — the felony grade, the limitations period, registration exposure, and the defenses that exist. In the cases our office sees across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County, the accusation almost always resolves into one of three charges.
- Indecency with a child — § 21.11
- The State must show sexual contact with a child younger than 17 — or exposure with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, knowing the child is present. "Sexual contact" under § 21.11(c) includes touching through clothing, and the statute applies "regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense." That phrase does real work: an honest mistake about age is not a defense to this charge.
- Sexual assault — § 22.011
- Penetration-based conduct, charged two ways: against an adult, the State must prove the act occurred without consent; against a child younger than 17, consent is legally irrelevant and the act itself is the crime. Most "date rape" and acquaintance allegations in DFW are filed under this section.
- Aggravated sexual assault — § 22.021
- Sexual assault plus an aggravating fact — a victim younger than 14, a deadly weapon, serious bodily injury, drugging, or threats of death or kidnapping. It is a first-degree felony in every form.
Around that core sit neighboring statutes prosecutors reach for when the facts run a pattern or a different age band: continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 21.02) for two or more acts spanning 30 days or longer against a child under 14, indecent assault (§ 22.012) for unwanted adult contact below the felony line, and online solicitation of a minor (§ 33.021) when the allegation lives in messages rather than in person. Mapping the accusation to its true statute is the first defense task, because the gap between charges is measured in decades of exposure.
What are the penalties for sexual misconduct in Texas?
Every offense in this cluster is a felony — from a third-degree felony (indecency by exposure, 2–10 years) through a first-degree felony (aggravated sexual assault, 5–99 years or life). Each carries a fine up to $10,000 and Chapter 62 sex-offender registration on conviction or deferred adjudication.
Every offense in this cluster is a felony. The table below sets out the ranges the statutes actually authorize — not worst-case rhetoric — along with the registration consequence that follows each.
| Offense & statute | Classification | Confinement | Max fine | Registration (CCP Ch. 62) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indecency with a child — contact, § 21.11(a)(1) | Second-degree felony | 2–20 years TDCJ | $10,000 | Lifetime (sexually violent offense) |
| Indecency with a child — exposure, § 21.11(a)(2) | Third-degree felony | 2–10 years TDCJ | $10,000 | Required under Chapter 62 |
| Sexual assault, § 22.011 | Second-degree felony; first-degree under § 22.011(f) | 2–20 years (5–99 or life if first-degree) | $10,000 | Lifetime (sexually violent offense) |
| Aggravated sexual assault, § 22.021 | First-degree felony | 5–99 years or life; 25-year minimum under § 22.021(f) | $10,000 | Lifetime (sexually violent offense) |
| Continuous sexual abuse of a child, § 21.02 | First-degree felony (special range) | 25–99 years or life | $10,000 | Lifetime |
Two punishment traps deserve attention. First, § 22.021(f) raises the minimum to 25 years when the victim is younger than 6, or younger than 14 where the assault is committed in a manner described by § 22.021(a)(2)(A). Second, § 21.02 carries a 25-year floor with no possibility of deferred adjudication — and prosecutors can charge it instead of individual acts whenever an allegation describes a pattern over 30 days or more against a child under 14. How an indictment frames the timeline can move the floor from probation-eligible to a quarter century.
What must the State prove? The elements, statute by statute
Conviction requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The contested element differs by statute — intent under § 21.11, consent or the complainant's age under § 22.011, and the aggravator under § 22.021 — and the defense builds around whichever one the State's evidence reaches weakest.
Conviction requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The contested element differs by statute, and the defense builds around whichever one the State's evidence reaches weakest.
- § 21.11 — Indecency with a child
- (1) The defendant engaged in sexual contact with a child younger than 17, or caused the child to engage in sexual contact — or exposed himself, or caused the child's exposure, knowing the child was present; (2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Intent is the battleground: the State usually proves it by circumstance, and innocent-contact explanations (bathing, medical care, horseplay) negate it.
- § 22.011 — Sexual assault
- (1) Intentional or knowing penetration or contact described by § 22.011(a); (2) without the complainant's consent under the § 22.011(b) list — or, in child cases, the complainant's age under 17 replaces the consent element entirely. In adult cases the consent definitions of § 22.011(b) — compulsion, incapacity, abuse of authority — are where trials are fought.
- § 22.021 — Aggravated sexual assault
- Every element of sexual assault, plus at least one aggravator: serious bodily injury or attempted death, threats of death, kidnapping or serious injury, a deadly weapon exhibited or used, administration of an impairing substance, acting with another, or a victim younger than 14 or elderly or disabled. Each aggravator is itself an element the State must prove — striking the aggravator drops the case a full degree.
One proof rule surprises nearly every client: Texas does not require corroboration. Under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.07, a conviction "is supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim" if the victim told someone other than the defendant within a year — and that one-year condition does not even apply when the alleged victim was 17 or younger. There is no rule that a sex case needs DNA, an eyewitness, or a confession. The defense answer is not to wait for missing evidence; it is to attack credibility, motive, and process.
What happens during a sexual misconduct investigation?
Most clients call before any arrest — after a CPS visit, a detective's voicemail, or word that a report was made. That window matters because these cases are screened, not rubber-stamped: report, forensic interview, evidence collection, an interview "invitation," then the DA and grand jury.
Most clients call us before any arrest — after a CPS visit, a detective's voicemail, or word that an ex or a co-worker has "made a report." That window matters because these cases are screened, not rubber-stamped. A typical child-allegation investigation in DFW runs: report to CPS or police → forensic interview of the child at a children's advocacy center → medical (SANE) exam where appropriate → collection of phones, messages, and school or medical records → an invitation for the accused to "come tell your side" → the detective's case packet to the district attorney → grand jury. Adult-complainant cases follow the same arc without the CAC step.
Three pre-charge decisions shape everything later. The interview invitation. Declining a custodial-style interview through counsel is not admissible guilt evidence, and the interview is rarely the path to a declination — the detective already has the complainant's account, and the session exists to lock yours in. The polygraph offer. Polygraph results are inadmissible in Texas courts; the statements you make during one are not. Contact with the accuser. Any message that can be read as pressure invites a witness-tampering charge under § 36.05 and becomes the State's strongest exhibit. Our pre-arrest investigation practice exists for exactly this stage: engaging the detective, preserving exculpatory messages before they expire from devices, lining up witnesses, and — where the case reaches a grand jury — submitting a defense packet aimed at a no-bill.
Hypothetical (illustrative only): a Frisco father in a contested custody modification learns CPS has opened an investigation after his ex reports their daughter "said something" at an exchange. No charge exists yet. Counsel's work that month — preserving the co-parenting app history showing escalating threats to "take the kids for good," documenting the timeline of the modification filing, declining the polygraph, and presenting both to the detective — is directed at the charging decision itself. None of that work is possible after indictment on the same facts.
How do prosecutors prove sexual misconduct allegations?
In child cases the State's spine is the outcry under CCP article 38.072 — the first adult the child told can repeat the statement to the jury. Around it prosecutors layer the recorded forensic interview, SANE findings, digital evidence, and, in child cases, article 38.37 extraneous-offense evidence.
In child cases the State's spine is the outcry. Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 creates a hearsay exception in prosecutions for offenses against children younger than 14: the first adult the child told can repeat the child's statement to the jury as substantive evidence. The exception has litigable edges. The Court of Criminal Appeals holds that the outcry witness must be the first person 18 or older to whom the child made a statement that "in some discernible manner describes the alleged offense" — more than "a general allusion that something in the area of child abuse was going on." Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). And outcry is event-specific, not person-specific: hearsay from more than one outcry witness is admissible only if the witnesses speak to different events, with only one outcry witness per event. Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137, 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When the State designates a forensic interviewer over the parent the child actually told first, that designation is a fight worth having — it controls whose retelling the jury hears.
Around the outcry, prosecutors layer the recorded forensic interview, SANE findings (which in most delayed-outcry cases are normal — a point juries need explained), digital evidence, and, in child cases, article 38.37 § 2 evidence: testimony that the defendant committed other child sex offenses, admitted for any bearing it has on character. That 2013 expansion is among the most consequential rules in this practice area, because it lets a single uncharged accusation from years past reshape a trial. Pretrial hearings on 38.37 reliability and on outcry designation are where much of the real litigation happens before a jury is ever seated.
What defenses work against false sexual misconduct allegations?
Defense strategy tracks the accusation's origin — custody and divorce disputes, retaliation after a breakup, misread caregiving contact, recantation pressure in blended families, and, in adult cases, genuinely contested consent. The toolset is motive evidence, suggestibility attacks, outcry litigation, digital forensics, and statutory close-in-age defenses.
Defense strategy tracks the accusation's origin. The recurring patterns we see are custody and divorce disputes, retaliation after a breakup, misread medical or caregiving contact, adolescent recantation pressure in blended families, and — in adult cases — genuinely contested consent. The toolset:
- Motive and bias evidence. Timeline work connecting the allegation's emergence to a custody filing, a protective-order application, or a discovered affair — admissible through cross-examination and extrinsic proof.
- Suggestibility and protocol attacks. Repeated questioning by an anxious parent before the forensic interview, leading questions inside it, or sibling cross-contamination — developed through the interview recording and, where warranted, a defense expert on child suggestibility.
- Outcry-witness litigation. Holding the State to Garcia's discernible-description standard and Lopez's one-witness-per-event rule, and excluding stacked retellings.
- Consent, in adult § 22.011 cases. Messages before and after the encounter, witness accounts of the evening, and inconsistencies between the first report and later statements.
- Digital forensics. Location history, deleted-message recovery, and app data that contradict the charged window — evidence that disappears if not preserved early.
- Statutory affirmative defenses. § 22.011(e) and § 21.11(b) protect certain consensual teenage relationships — the defendant not more than three years older than a complainant 14 or older (with additional statutory conditions, including no registration history). See our Romeo-Juliet defense page for the fine print.
Know the limits, too. Mistake about age is not a defense to § 21.11 or to child-victim § 22.011 charges — the statutes say so expressly. Intoxication is not a defense. And an affirmative defense must be proven by the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, which means corroborating the ages and the relationship on paper, not just through testimony.
Can sexual misconduct allegations be dismissed or expunged?
Yes — and the paths are concrete. Before indictment the DA can decline the case and the grand jury can no-bill it. After indictment, dismissal follows from suppression, outcry or 38.37 exclusions, or a collapsing complainant account. An acquittal or dismissal supports expunction under CCP Chapter 55A.
Yes — and the paths are concrete. Before indictment, the district attorney can decline the case outright, and the grand jury can no-bill it; both end the prosecution without a public trial. After indictment, dismissal typically follows from suppression rulings, outcry or 38.37 exclusions that gut the State's proof, or a complainant's account that collapses under investigation. Texas's limitations rules also matter: current article 12.01 lists the core child-victim offenses in this cluster — indecency with a child, sexual assault of a child, aggravated sexual assault of a child — among the offenses with no limitations period, while most adult-complainant sexual assaults carry a ten-year period subject to DNA-based exceptions. Because the Legislature has amended article 12.01 repeatedly, the version in force on the offense date controls, and limitations is a defense issue worth auditing in every decades-old allegation.
Record relief follows the outcome. An acquittal or a dismissal without conviction supports expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55A, erasing the arrest record. What is not available is nondisclosure after a conviction or deferred adjudication for these offenses — offenses requiring Chapter 62 registration are excluded from sealing by the Government Code. That asymmetry drives strategy: in a defensible case, the difference between a pre-charge declination and a plea to "something small" is the difference between a clean record and a lifetime entry.
Do Title IX or workplace investigations lead to criminal charges?
Often they run in parallel, and the campus or HR track is built on rules that would be unconstitutional in a courtroom. Anything said in a Title IX or HR proceeding can be subpoenaed by a detective working the same facts, so the criminal exposure has to govern how the administrative case is answered.
Often they run in parallel, and the campus or HR track is built on rules that would be unconstitutional in a courtroom. A university Title IX panel decides responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence, allows no true cross-examination in many formats, and expects the respondent to participate — while anything said there can be subpoenaed by a detective working the same facts. The sequencing problem is real: answer the campus case fully and you may hand the State a recorded statement; stay silent and you may lose the enrollment or the job. We coordinate both tracks so the criminal exposure governs — usually written submissions on the administrative side, scoped to facts already documented, with Fifth Amendment positions preserved. Educators face a third track: a report to the State Board for Educator Certification follows many school-based allegations regardless of whether charges are ever filed, with its own deadlines and its own counsel needs.
County-by-county practice notes: Collin, Dallas, Denton & Tarrant
These charges are felonies, so they are indicted by a county grand jury and tried in district court. Across all four DFW counties the constants are the same: grand-jury presentation is the first true checkpoint, bond conditions routinely bar unsupervised contact with minors, and the forensic-interview recording is the document the case orbits.
These charges are felonies, so they are indicted by a county grand jury and tried in district court. Collin County cases are heard at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building) in McKinney; forensic interviews in child cases are commonly conducted at the Children's Advocacy Center of Collin County in Plano, and Frisco-side allegations often begin with a school or CPS referral rather than a police report. Dallas County felonies run through the Frank Crowley Courts Building, with forensic interviews typically at the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center and a district attorney's office that staffs dedicated crimes-against-children prosecutors. Denton County cases are tried at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton, with CAC services through the Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County. Tarrant County felonies are heard at the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth, with Alliance for Children serving as the county's advocacy center. The constants across all four: grand-jury presentation is the first true checkpoint, bond conditions in child-allegation cases routinely include no unsupervised contact with minors — including the defendant's own children — and the forensic-interview recording is the document the entire case orbits.
Collateral consequences beyond the sentence
The conviction is rarely the whole punishment. Chapter 62 registration — lifetime for the contact and penetration offenses here — controls where a client can live and work. A felony strips firearm rights, exposes professional licenses, and, for non-citizens, is routinely treated as a removable offense.
The conviction is rarely the whole punishment. Chapter 62 registration — lifetime for the contact and penetration offenses here — controls where a client can live and work and follows interstate moves. A felony conviction strips firearm rights under Penal Code § 46.04 and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). Professional licenses are squarely exposed: SBEC discipline for educators, Board of Nursing action for nurses, and fitness determinations for medical, legal, and financial licensure. For non-citizens, offenses in this cluster are routinely treated as removable aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude — immigration counsel belongs in the room before any plea. Housing, employment screening, and family-court custody findings complete the picture. A defense plan that ignores these is not a plan; charge-selection and outcome strategy must be built around which consequences are survivable for the particular client.
