Teacher gets four years in prison for improper relationship… | TCTA
Share this page:
Gavel, law books and scales of justice

Teacher gets four years in prison for improper relationship with student

Share this page:

A Texas teacher was indicted for the offense of improper relationship between an educator and a student. Prior to trial, the prosecution informed him that it intended to introduce evidence about other misconduct the teacher was alleged to have engaged in.

At trial, the teacher pled guilty to the offense of having an improper relationship with a student and admitted that he had a sexual encounter with S.S., an 18-year-old student. After entering his plea, the court held a sentencing hearing to determine the teacher's punishment. During that hearing, the prosecution offered the testimony of five students, including S.S. The testimony of those students indicated that the teacher flirted with and touched students other than S.S. The teacher was sentenced to four years in prison.

The teacher filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the prosecution did not properly notify him that it intended to introduce the testimony of students other than S.S. and that he was therefore unable to prepare a response.

In considering this argument, the court noted that evidence of other misconduct is admissible in punishment if the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution is required to notify the defendant that it intents to introduce such evidence and must include the date on which the other misconduct was alleged to have occurred, the county it was alleged to have occurred in and the name of the alleged victim.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide this information to the teacher. However, the court held that the teacher should have objected to the introduction of the evidence at trial, which would have given the judge the opportunity to consider this argument and possibly prevent the introduction of the testimony. But the teacher did not object. Therefore, he could not raise this issue on appeal. The Court of Appeals upheld the punishment.