Statutory Elements
Section summary§21.02 requires the actor to commit two or more enumerated acts of sexual abuse during a period of 30 days or more, with the victim younger than 14 at the time of each act.
Elements:
- The actor committed two or more acts of sexual abuse.
- The acts occurred during a period of 30 days or more.
- The victim was younger than 14 at the time of each act.
- The acts are from the enumerated list at §21.02(c).
Predicate Acts
Section summaryThe predicate-act list at §21.02(c) includes aggravated kidnapping with sexual intent, indecency with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and certain other enumerated offenses.
The §21.02(c) predicate-act list:
- Aggravated kidnapping with intent to violate or abuse sexually.
- Indecency with a child under §21.11.
- Sexual assault under §22.011.
- Aggravated sexual assault under §22.021.
- Certain other enumerated offenses.
Jury Unanimity
Section summary§21.02(d) provides that the jury need not agree on which specific acts of sexual abuse occurred, as long as the jury unanimously agrees that the actor committed two or more acts during the 30-day-or-more period. This is unique among Texas sex offenses.
The unanimity provision:
- Jury must agree the actor committed two or more acts.
- Jury need not agree on which specific acts.
- Jury need not agree on specific dates.
- This rule has been challenged but upheld in Render v. State and subsequent cases.
- Practical effect: the State can present multiple acts and let the jury aggregate.
Defenses
Section summaryDefenses include identity, fabrication of outcry, challenges to the 30-day-period element, and challenges to specific predicate acts. The aggregation structure makes traditional alibi defenses more difficult.
Available defenses:
- Identity (the actor was not the perpetrator).
- Fabrication or coaching of outcry.
- Challenge to the 30-day-or-more period.
- Insufficient evidence of specific predicate acts.
- Constitutional challenges (jury unanimity, due process).
- Suggestibility and forensic-interview challenges.
Sentencing
Section summary§21.02 carries 25 to 99 years or life. Probation is not available. Parole eligibility is delayed (35 years or 50% of sentence, whichever is less, in some calculations).
Sentencing details:
- 1st-degree felony, mandatory minimum 25 years.
- Maximum 99 years or life.
- No probation under any circumstances.
- Parole eligibility under CCP Art. 42A.054 — delayed substantially.
- Lifetime sex offender registration.
Collateral Consequences
Section summaryBeyond the criminal sentence: lifetime registration, residency restrictions, civil commitment exposure under HSC Chapter 841, severe employment and licensure consequences, and immigration consequences.
Major collateral consequences:
- Lifetime sex offender registration.
- Residency and employment restrictions.
- Civil commitment evaluation under HSC Chapter 841.
- Immigration consequences (aggravated felony).
- Loss of professional licensure.
- Federal firearm rights loss.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Sex Crimes Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →Registration and Collateral Consequences Screen
Continuous Sexual Abuse Defense cases frequently turn on the registration consequences of any disposition more than on the carceral sentence itself. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 imposes registration ranging from 10 years to lifetime depending on the offense. SORNA (the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. §§20911–20932) imposes parallel federal registration where applicable.
For a §21.02 charge, counsel must screen every potential plea structure for registration consequences before any disposition discussion with the prosecutor. Some registrable offenses trigger registration even on deferred adjudication; others do not. Some non-registrable offenses become registrable if certain aggravators apply. The specific statutory category controls; the apparent "lesser" plea may not avoid registration depending on the underlying conduct.
Residential restrictions, employment restrictions, internet-use restrictions, and public-database listing all attach to registration and have lifelong impact. The defendant must understand the full registration framework before accepting any plea. A plea that produces six months of jail and lifetime registration may be a worse outcome than a contested trial that produces a longer carceral sentence on a non-registrable offense.
Evidence and Expert Witnesses
Continuous Sexual Abuse Defense prosecutions rely heavily on testimony from forensic interviewers, SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) nurses, child-protective-services investigators, and lay witnesses who relayed disclosures. The defense's foundation work is rigorous review of the chain of evidence and of the methodology behind each witness's conclusions.
For a §21.02 charge, the defense should retain expert witnesses where the facts warrant: forensic psychologists who can speak to suggestibility and child memory, forensic-interview specialists who can critique the State's interview methodology, medical experts who can challenge the State's interpretation of physical findings, and DNA experts where the State's DNA evidence is central. Defense expert funding is available under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.05 for indigent cases and through CJA appointment in federal cases.
The defense should also focus on the Confrontation Clause framework after Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015). Statements children made to forensic interviewers at child-advocacy centers are often testimonial and inadmissible if the child does not testify. Statements to medical providers and to caregivers during emergencies may be admissible without confrontation. Each out-of-court statement must be classified, and motions in limine should target the testimonial statements before trial.
The continuous sexual abuse offense under Section 21.02
Texas Penal Code Section 21.02 criminalizes continuous sexual abuse of a young child or disabled individual. The offense is a first-degree felony with a punishment range of 25 to 99 years or life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 35 years. The minimum sentence of 25 years is substantially higher than the minimums for individual acts that comprise the continuous abuse, reflecting the legislative judgment about the severity of patterns of abuse.
The offense requires proof that the defendant committed two or more acts of sexual abuse during a period of 30 or more days against a child younger than 14 years of age, or against a disabled individual. The specific acts of sexual abuse are enumerated in Section 21.02(c) and include aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, indecency with a child by sexual contact, sexual performance by a child, possession of child pornography in connection with the abuse pattern, and trafficking of persons under 18.
The temporal element requiring 30 or more days of abuse pattern is among the most distinctive features of the offense. The pattern must extend over the required period, with the specific acts occurring at different times. The defense in some cases challenges whether the alleged acts occurred over the required time span, particularly in cases where the timeline is uncertain or where the alleged victim has provided inconsistent accounts about when specific acts occurred.
The non-unanimity provisions and the procedural framework
One of the most distinctive procedural features of Section 21.02 is the non-unanimity provision under Section 21.02(d). The jury does not need to agree on which specific acts of abuse occurred, but only that two or more acts occurred during the relevant time period. The non-unanimity framework was upheld against constitutional challenge by the Court of Criminal Appeals and provides the prosecution with substantial flexibility in proving the offense.
The non-unanimity framework affects defense strategy substantially. The defense cannot focus on disproving any single alleged act because the jury can convict based on different combinations of alleged acts that different jurors believe occurred. The defense must develop comprehensive challenges to the underlying allegations rather than focusing on specific incidents. The strategy requires careful evaluation of the strongest and weakest evidence and development of theories that address the case as a whole.
The procedural framework includes specific provisions for handling outcry evidence, expert testimony, and the introduction of evidence about uncharged acts. Each evidentiary framework has implications for the trial strategy. The defense should engage with each framework through pretrial motions to limit the prosecution case and to preserve evidentiary objections for appeal. The cumulative effect of pretrial motion practice can substantially affect the trial dynamics and the disposition options.
The forensic interview and the outcry framework
The forensic interview framework is central to most continuous sexual abuse cases. The interviews are typically conducted at Children Advocacy Centers by trained forensic interviewers using established protocols. The interviews are recorded and provide the foundation for much of the prosecution evidence. The defense should obtain the complete interview recordings, the interviewer notes, and any related documentation through pretrial discovery.
The interview analysis should focus on the techniques used, the questions asked, the responses given, and the consistency of the alleged victim accounts across multiple interviews or interactions. Forensic interview protocols including the National Children Advocacy Center protocol and the Sandia Protocol provide specific standards that interviewers should follow. Departures from the protocols can substantially affect the reliability of the resulting accounts and provide grounds for challenging the interview evidence.
The outcry framework under Article 38.072 permits the testimony of the first adult to whom the alleged victim made statements about the abuse. The outcry witness can testify about the substantive content of the alleged statements, which makes the outcry witness a powerful prosecution tool. The defense should challenge the outcry framework on multiple grounds including the qualifications of the alleged outcry witness, the specificity of the alleged statements, and the timing relative to the alleged events. The Crawford v. Washington framework also affects the outcry analysis when the alleged victim does not testify.
The sentencing structure and the post-conviction implications
The 25-year minimum sentence under Section 21.02 produces substantial sentencing exposure that affects every aspect of case strategy. The defense should evaluate the plea options against the minimum sentence on a continuous sexual abuse conviction. Pleas to individual sexual assault or indecency offenses may produce lower minimums and substantially shorter realistic sentences. The plea evaluation requires careful consideration of the prosecution willingness to accept charge reductions and the comparative consequences of each potential disposition.
The parole eligibility framework for continuous sexual abuse convictions extends the actual time served. Under Government Code Section 508.145, defendants convicted under Section 21.02 must serve 35 calendar years before becoming parole eligible. The 35-year requirement means that defendants who plead to or are convicted of Section 21.02 face decades of actual incarceration regardless of the nominal sentence imposed.
The post-conviction implications extend across multiple frameworks. Sex offender registration is mandatory under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 with lifetime requirements in most cases. The civil commitment framework under Chapter 841 applies to Section 21.02 convictions and produces potential additional confinement after the criminal sentence. The cumulative consequences affect employment, residence, family relationships, and virtually every other aspect of post-release life. The defense should counsel clients about these consequences in detail before any plea decision is finalized.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is §21.02 the same as multiple charges of sexual assault?
Can §21.02 apply to acts before the statute was enacted?
Does the State have to prove the specific dates of acts?
Can a §21.02 case proceed if the victim cannot identify specific dates?
Read the full Texas Sex Crimes Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Sex Crimes Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Continuous Sexual Abuse Defense, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/continuous-sexual-abuse-defense/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Continuous Sexual Abuse Defense. L&L Law Group.