Carmell v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawEx Post Facto ClauseRules of EvidenceSufficiency of the EvidenceEx Post Facto ClauseCalder v. Bullfourth categorylegal rules of evidence

Facts

At the time petitioner allegedly committed four sexual offenses between June 1992 and July 1993, Texas Article 38.07 allowed conviction on a victim's uncorroborated testimony only if the victim was under 14 or had made a timely outcry; otherwise corroboration was required. In 1993, Texas amended the statute to extend the child-victim exception from victims under 14 to victims under 18. At petitioner's 1996 trial, four convictions rested solely on the victim's testimony, with no timely outcry and no corroborating evidence, for acts committed when the victim was 14 or 15. Those convictions were valid only if the amended statute could be applied retroactively.

Issue

May Texas retroactively apply a statutory amendment that allows conviction on the victim's testimony alone, where the law in effect when the offenses were committed required corroboration or timely outcry? Does such retrospective application violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it reduces the amount of evidence required to convict?

Rule

The Ex Post Facto Clause forbids retrospective application of a law that falls within Calder v. Bull's fourth category: a law that alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction on less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the offense. A statute that changes the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction is such a law, even if it does not alter the elements of the offense or the punishment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, when Leon Baker allegedly committed robbery in 2022, a statute provided that a conviction could not be sustained on an accomplice's testimony unless corroborated by other evidence. In 2024, the legislature repealed the corroboration requirement, and at Leon's 2025 trial in Cleveland the prosecution proved the charge solely through the accomplice's testimony.

If the repeal is applied to Leon's 2022 conduct, is the conviction constitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when retrospectively applied if it reduces the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to convict. Here, the old law required accomplice testimony plus corroboration; the new law permits conviction on the accomplice's testimony alone. That is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence change authorizing conviction on less testimony than previously required. It does not matter that the elements and punishment remain unchanged, and the defendant need not show actual reliance.