Texas Judge Will Not Face Criminal Charges - Statute Of Limitations Expired

[NeedleCast]

http://news.yahoo.com/police-judge-wont-charged-over-video-beating-044701682.html

Although police investigators say he likely would have faced criminal charges for causing injury to a child or other assault related offenses, the statute of limitations has expired. Adam's is still under investigation by Texas Judicial Conduct Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

[Fumesucker]

1. And yet I found this on DU earlier which looks like ten years is the statue for this crime...

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 12. LIMITATION

Art. 12.01. FELONIES. Except as provided in Article 12.03, felony indictments may be presented within these limits, and not afterward:

(1) no limitation:

(A) murder and manslaughter;

(B) sexual assault under Section 22.011(a)(2), Penal Code, or aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021(a)(1)(B), Penal Code;

(C) sexual assault, if during the investigation of the offense biological matter is collected and subjected to forensic DNA testing and the testing results show that the matter does not match the victim or any other person whose identity is readily ascertained;

(D) continuous sexual abuse of young child or children under Section 21.02, Penal Code;

(E) indecency with a child under Section 21.11, Penal Code; or

(F) an offense involving leaving the scene of an accident under Section 550.021, Transportation Code, if the accident resulted in the death of a person;

---------------

(2) ten years from the date of the commission of the offense:

(A) theft of any estate, real, personal or mixed, by an executor, administrator, guardian or trustee, with intent to defraud any creditor, heir, legatee, ward, distributee, beneficiary or settlor of a trust interested in such estate;

(B) theft by a public servant of government property over which he exercises control in his official capacity;

(C) forgery or the uttering, using or passing of forged instruments;

(D) injury to an elderly or disabled individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code; -- injury exceeds the simple verbal abuse condition, e.g. a severe lashing

(E) sexual assault, except as provided by Subdivision (1); or

(F) arson;

--------------

(3) seven years from the date of the commission of the offense:

(A) misapplication of fiduciary property or property of a financial institution;

(B) securing execution of document by deception;

(C) a felony violation under Chapter 162, Tax Code;

(D) false statement to obtain property or credit under Section 32.32, Penal Code;

(E) money laundering;

(F) credit card or debit card abuse under Section 32.31, Penal Code; or

(G) fraudulent use or possession of identifying information under Section 32.51, Penal Code;

---------------------

(4) five years from the date of the commission of the offense:

(A) theft or robbery;

(B) except as provided by Subdivision (5), kidnapping or burglary;

(C) injury to an elderly or disabled individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section 22.04, Penal Code;

(D) abandoning or endangering a child; or

(E) insurance fraud;

--------------------------

(5) if the investigation of the offense shows that the victim is younger than 17 years of age at the time the offense is committed, 20 years from the 18th birthday of the victim of one of the following offenses:

(A) sexual performance by a child under Section 43.25, Penal Code;

(B) aggravated kidnapping under Section 20.04(a)(4), Penal Code, if the defendant committed the offense with the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually; or

(C) burglary under Section 30.02, Penal Code, if the offense is punishable under Subsection (d) of that section and the defendant committed the offense with the intent to commit an offense described by Subdivision (1)(B) or (D) of this article or Paragraph (B) of this subdivision;

----------------------

(6) ten years from the 18th birthday of the victim of the offense: injury to a child under Section 22.04, Penal Code; -- injury exceeds the simple verbal abuse condition, e.g. a severe lashing

----------------------

(7) three years from the date of the commission of the offense: all other felonies.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 975, ch. 399, Sec. 2(B), eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 478, ch. 203, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.



Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 413, ch. 85, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5317, ch. 977, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 330, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1985; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 716, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 476, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 740, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 39, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1285, Sec. 33, eff. Sept. 1, 2000; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 12, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1479, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1482, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 371, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1276, Sec. 5.001, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1162, Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 285, Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593, Sec. 1.03, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 640, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Reenacted and amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87, Sec. 6.001, eff. September 1, 2009.

Reenacted and amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1227, Sec. 38, eff. September 1, 2009.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. they work on a christian calendar in Texas.

If you are a republican, the statute has expired. If you are a liberal, the statute does not apply.

[NeedleCast]

3. Aparently they are saying it is a non-ffirst degree felony offense

and would thus fall under section 4, the five year limitation stuff.

[Fumesucker]

4. ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PLjNWOu-Zn0/ScpgE7diU0I/AAAAAAAAAd4/MR8l5f9sDtY/s400/shocked+to+find+gaming.jpg

[Jkid]

5. This changes nothing.

His career is already going to be blemished because of this.

[NeedleCast]

6. I hope it's a lot more than blemished

I'd prefer to see his career as a judge ended. At least one person close to the case seems to think that might happen.

"And the top administrator in Aransas County cast doubt on whether Adams could credibly return to the bench"

[Ian David]

7. Anonymous - Operation DoxTheJudge

Anonymous - Operation DoxTheJudge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x631845

[TBF]

10. Rec this post - I hope Anonymous makes his life a living hell. nt

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

9. And what kind of solution is that?...nt

Sid

[TBF]

11. Boy do I agree with that. nt

[KansDem]

12. I thought the statute of limitations started with the reporting of a crime...

...not when it actually happened.

:shrug:

[Kablooie]

13. What I wonder is why the hell did he videotape that? Was he proud of what he did?

I never videotape myself when I commit criminal acts.

Or at least I've destroyed all the tapes of me jaywalking.

[SidDithers]

14. The daughter videotaped it...nt

Sid

[NeedleCast]

15. The victim videotaped it

She has said that events of this nature had been happening with increasing frequency and she thought it was about to happen again, so she set up her web cam ahead of time.

[Kablooie]

19. Question answered and answer approved.

[moondust]

16. Two CNN legal experts say it's child abuse.

Both say he should be disbarred.

Per Anderson Cooper 360 last night in which he interviewed the young woman and her mother as well as the legal experts.

[NeedleCast]

17. I saw the AC interview - it was good

The mother also suggested that someone, presumable judge Adams, had a substance abuse problem.

[moondust]

18. I imagine there are

plenty of wingnuts who would say that what he did was okay because she belongs to him and he can do whatever he wants to his own property. That seems to be roughly his line of thinking. Sort of a slave owner's mindset.

:eyes: