finding a statute that criminalized sexual conduct between a dormitory residential advisor and a student over the age of majority should be reviewed under a rational basis standard, which it met
How later courts described this case
- finding a statute that criminalized sexual conduct between a dormitory residential advisor and a student over the age of majority should be reviewed under a rational basis standard, which it met
- observing, in context of novel constitutional challenge to Penal Code Section 21.12, that “as an intermediate state appellate court, we must . . . defer to the authoritative pronouncements of higher courts that currently define the scope of the constitutional principles we apply here” (citing Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554 , 564–65 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.))
- recognizing that students are particularly vulnerable to teachers’ misuse of the “great trust and confidence [placed in educators] by the school, parents, and public.”
- explaining that equal protection clause requires that " ‘all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike’ under the law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JAN P. PATTERSON, Justice,
concurring.
Because I cannot join in the breadth of the majority opinion, I concur in the judgment only.