Arroyo v. State
2017 WL 3044596, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6632 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal sufficiency of evidence for a conviction requires that, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court does not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence but ensures that the necessary inferences are reasonable based on the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence.
Facts:
- Appellant was a family friend considered an 'uncle' by the complainant, K.E.
- Appellant had a history of physical contact with K.E., including twirling her hair and rubbing her neck and arms.
- At the age of nine, after her grandfather's funeral, K.E. was subjected to sexual touching by the Appellant at her house.
- K.E. testified at age 18, describing multiple incidents where the Appellant touched her chest and genitals.
- K.E. stated she knew the touching was wrong and described it progressing from her chest to her vagina.
- The jury convicted the Appellant of six counts of indecency with a child, three for touching the breast and three for touching the genitals.
- On appeal, the court of appeals found the evidence insufficient for the breast-touching counts but sufficient for the genital-touching counts, acquitting the former.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support a finding that the appellant touched the complainant's breast with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, and did the appellate court properly refrain from re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court (J.)
Yes, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could conclude that the Appellant touched K.E.'s breast with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. The appellate court's role is to ensure that the jury's decision was rational and that the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence. I distinguish this case from Nelson, noting that K.E.'s description of the touching progressing to her vagina and her understanding that it was wrong, combined with the legislative changes to the indecency statute removing age and gender restrictions on the term 'breast', support a sufficient inference that the breast was touched with the requisite intent. I reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of 'breast' in the context of indecency with a child and the standard for appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency. It underscores the importance of considering legislative changes and the totality of evidence when evaluating legal sufficiency, and it emphasizes the appellate court's role as a due process safeguard, ensuring that the jury's verdict is based on rational inferences from the evidence.
