### NUM BER 13-07- 0056 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M A RIO A LB ERT O A DA IR, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 36 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Sa n Patricio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Ma ri o Al ber to A dai r, w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h t h re e c ounts of ind ecency

w it h a chi ld, a s econd deg re e felony , and si x co unts of ag g ra v ated sex ual
ass aul t, a f irst deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 21 .11 (a)(1), (d) (Verno n 20 03), § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) , (e ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t on all ni ne c ounts cont ain ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Appel lan t el ect ed for the tr ial cour t to as ses s h is puni shment

.W e d o n o t d e ta i l H u tc h i n s ’ s te s ti m o n y b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t a ff e c t th e d i s p o s i ti o n i n th i s c a s e
. See 1 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1

. 2 He w as sub sequen tly

sente nced to forty y ears’ imp risonm entfor a g g rav ated sexual assau lt and tw ent y

years’ im prisonm entfor in dece ncy w ith a child. T he trial cou rt did notimpo se any fines and ordered th e s entenc es to r un c oncur re ntl y . By one is sue, appel lan t arg ues tha t the ev iden ce ad duce d at trial w as legally a n d f a c t u ally

insuf f icient to supp ort his
c on v i c ti on
. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On M ar ch 6, 20 07, appell ant w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h three c ounts of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d and si x

co unts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. See i d. §§ 2 1.1 1(a)(1), 22.021( a) (1 )( B)

. The ju ry tr ial commenced on Aug ust13, 2007. At tr ial , t he St ate c all ed fiv e w it ness es— B.A. , the chi ld v ic ti m, A. A., appel lan t’ s d aug hter , B. A.’ s mot her , C hr is ti an Seg ura, a detec ti v e for the Y uma Pol ic e D epar tment in Ar iz ona, and St ev e Hutchin s, a
cr imi nal i nv est ig ator

w it h the San Patr ic io Cou nty Sher iff’s O ff ic e—w hil e appel lan t di d not call any w itnesse s. 1 a. B.A ’s Tes timony B.A. w as fourteen y ears o ld at t he ti me of tr ial and li v ed w it h her m other , sis ter , and brother , M .A.A ., in Y uma, Ari z ona. W hil e her famil y w as li v ing in Yuma, her moth er and appel lan t g ot di v or ced. After the d iv or ce, appel lan t mov ed to Ing les ide , Tex as. B. A. a nd her si bli ng s w oul d v is itappel lan t i n Ing les ide dur ing the su m mer and dur ing C hr is tmas breaks from s chool

. The ev ents i n qu e st ion transpi re d dur ing a v is iti n the su mmer o f 200 5. W hile staying at ap pellan t’s hou se in Ingleside, she an d he r sibling s w ould
occ asi onal ly

sl eep i n appel lan t’ s room. W hen as ked about the e v ents i n q uest ion , B. A.3

te st if ie d to th e fo llo wing: Q [the Sta te]: I w ant to talk to y ou abo ut som e of the time —or I g uess

on e ti me t ha t y ou s l ep t i n y ou r d ad ’ s b ed roo m. R i g h tw h e n y o u g o tb a c kfro m A r i z o n a to I n gl e s id e d id yo u r d a d t o u c h yo u in a p p ro p ri a t e ly? A [B .A.] : Notas so on as w e g ot t here. Q: Abo ut ho w long w as it f rom th e time t haty ou got the re unti l the t ime he di d tha t? A: Abo ut a week later. Q: And w here di d thi s t ake pla ce in the h ouse? A: M y d ad ’ s roo m. Q: W as thi s d ayti me or ni g htti me? A: Ni g htti me. Q: W hat d id y our dad do to y ou? A: H e pu t hi s mo ut h on my pr i v at e. H e pu t hi s p en i s i n my but t, he put his f ingers i n m y priv ate , and he pu t his mo ut h on my

b reas t, a nd h e pu t hi s fi ng ers o n my breast

.

. . . . Q: By pr iv ate[, ] w hat a re y ou ta lk ing about ? A: My v ag ina

. B.A. ’s brother and si ste r w ere in the ro om sl eepi ng w hil e the al leg ed offenses t ra nspi re d. The room w as dar k. Appel lan t and her brother u su a lly slepton a ppel lan t’ s q ueen- si z ed mattress w hil e s he and her si ste r sl ept o n a mattress on the f loo r. B.A. w as ly ing bes ide her si ste r w hen the all eg ed offenses happened, but appel lan t kept mov ing her aw ay from her si ste r. B.A. testi fied that appell ant sex ual ly assaul ted her ag ain tow ards the end of the
summer of 2005.T he r ecor d do es no t cont ai n an y r epor t s per t ai ni ng t o an y m edi cal exam i nat i on o fB. A. when she 2 was t aken t o t he e m er gency r oom
. I n f act , t he r ecor d sug gest s t hat B. A. was on l y i nt er v i ewed byl aw enf or cem ent aut hor i t i es when she a r r i v ed a t t he e m er gency r oom
.

B .A . t e s ti fie d th a t A m b e rly ’ s P l a c e i s “a p l a c e w h e re k i d s g o w h e n th e y h a v e b e e n ra p e d o r h u rt . 3

. . . ” D et ect i v e Segur a l at er descr i bed Am ber l y ’ s Pl ace as a “ m ul t i di sci pl i nar y cent er
. . . . I t ’ s a one- st op sh op f or t he i nv est i gat i ons o fcr i m es ag ai nst chi l dr en. T he pl ace y ou do— y ou do t he i nt er v i ews t her e. Y ou ca n do th e m e d i c a l e x a m
. Y o u g e t c o u n s e l i n g , c ris i s i n te rv e n ti o n , t h i n g s l i k e th a t.” 4 W hen asked abo ut he r outcryst ate me nt, B. A. stat ed th at she did nottell anyone in Ing le sid e aboutthe inc ide nts bec ause she w as sc ared of g etti ng hur t and r uin ing
ev er y one’ s l iv es. Ev entual ly , on Aug ust22, 2005, B.A. co nfided i n her mot h e r after
w atc hin g a mov ie on te lev is ion abouta g ir l w ho w as m o le st ed and did not tel l any one abo ut it. Af

t e r t e ll in g her m oth er abo ut th e incide nts, B. A. w as take n to th e em ergency
roo m. 2 Later , B. A. metD etec ti v e Seg ura and g av e hi m her statementat Amber ly ’s Pl ace. 3 Detect iv e Segura th en inst ructed B.A. to record telep hon e conversation s with a ppe llant in
order to “mak e hi m admitw hat h e di d.” D etec ti v e Seg ura as si ste d B.A. w it h recordin g one tel e p hone c onv ersat ion sh e had w it h appel lan t; how ev er , app ell ant d id not a nsw er the phone o n thi s o cc asi on. B.A. l ater sp oke w it h appel lan t ov er the phone on th re e di ff erent
occ asi ons, and she re corded eac h c onv ersat ion

. After maki ng the re cordin g s, B.A. tur ned the m over to Detect iv e Segura. B.A. f urthe r testif ied that the v oices on the reco rdings w ere of her and app ell ant, and upo n q uest ion ing by the Stat e, B.A. ind ic ated that she w as not
marr ied to appel lan t. On c ro ss-e x aminat ion , B. A. s tated thatsh e c oul d notremember w hat s he w as
w ear ing on t he n igh ts t h at t he i nci dents oc cur re d. She al so noted that the mattress on
w hic h s he and her si ste r sl ept w as a reg ula r mattress thatw as pul led off anot her bed in the house and that she and her si ste r shared a bla nketw hil e s lee pin g on t he matt re ss
. B.A.5

admit ted t hat t he reason the chi ldren w ere sl eepi ng in appel lan t’ s room w as becau se the air condit ion er

in the house had sto pped w or ki ng
. B.A. also admit ted t hat a ppel lan t pul led her sh orts dow n and pul led her sh ir t up hal fw ay

rather than fully re mov ing all of her cl othi ng
w hil e the all eg ed inc ide nts took pla ce. Fi nal ly , B.A. tes ti fied th at w hen s he recorded t he
c on v ers at i on s w i th a pp el l an t, h er mo th er w as i n th e roo m. b. T est imo ny

o f B. A .’s Mo th er After she and appel lan t separated in 2003, appel lan t mov ed back t o In gle si de,
w here the famil y

had re si ded prev iou sl y . The coupl e’s div or ce w as finali z ed in 2004. The coupl e ag re ed to a j oin t c ust ody ar ra ng ement w hereby appel lan t c oul d c o m e v is itthe chi ldren any

ti me he l ik ed. The ar ra ng ement al so all ow ed for th e c hil dren to v is itappel lan t dur ing the summer , C hr is tmas, and someti mes s pr ing break. D ur ing the summer of 2005, the c hil dren v is it ed appe ll ant i n Ing les ide from M ay unti l Aug ust

. After re tur nin g to Ar iz ona, B.A. ca ll ed her

w hil e s he w as at w or k a t app ro x imat ely 8:00 p.m. on Aug ust 22, 2005, to infor m her

of the a lle ged i nci dents thathad transpi re d at appel lan t’ s h ome i n Ing les ide

. Af ter she rece iv ed th e ph one call from B.A., she left w ork and took B. A. to th e em ergency
ro om. W hil e at the h o spital , B. A. s poke to s ev eral different pol ic e off ic ers reg ardin g the inc ide nts

. Later , D etec ti v e Seg ura c ame ov er to h e r h o u se t o i nter

v iew her reg ardin g B.A. ’s allegation s. Sub sequen tly , B.A. w as interview ed by police of f icers at Amb erly ’s Pl ace. c. A .A .’s Tes timony A.A. cu rrentl y

l iv es w it h her

mother , B. A., and M .A.A . i n Y uma, Ar iz ona. W hen t he chi ldren w oul d v is itappel lan t dur ing the summer and a t C hr is tmas, the chi ldren
occ asi onal ly

sl ept i n appel lan t’ s b edroom. A.A. w oul d take the matt re ss from her bed andW hen asked what “cr i m es agai nst chi l dr en” ar e, D et ect i v e S egur a r espond ed t hat t he d escr i pt i on 4 in c lu d e d “ [y] o u r m o le s ts [s ic ], s e x u a l a s s a u lts , s e x u a l a b u s e , to u c h in g s , th in g s lik e t h a t, a ls o s o m e tim e s c h ild a b u s e , t h e p h y s i c a l a b u s e .” 6 pla ce iti n appel lan t’ s b edroom. The mattress had pil lows a nd blank ets on it , and sh e and B.A. w oul d sle ep to g ether on t he matt re ss
. Theymost ly sl ept i n appel lan t’ s b edroom becau se the h ome air

condit ion ing unit w as bro ken. How ev er , A.A. stat ed th at ap pel lan t had purchas ed a “p ortabl e ai r conditi on th ing thathe p ut on hi s w ind ow ” and t hat s he
re membered i t bei ng us ed onl y dur ing the summer

of 2005. W it h resp ectto the nig hts in ques ti on, A.A. re cal led one nig ht w here s he w oke up to find B.A . i n appel lan t’ s bed. B.A. usual ly w ore shor ts and a t- shi rtto bed w hil e s tay ing at ap pel lan t’ s h ome. A.A. tes ti fied that she had heard the recorded c onv ersat ion s made by B.A . and thatthe v oic es on th e recordin g w ere tha t of B.A . and appel lan t. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , A. A. a dmit ted that her dog M ini , a Chi huahua, often s lep t on the mat tress w ith he r and B.A

. w hen t hey sta y ed at ap pellan t’s hom e. She did notrecall Mi ni sl eepi ng anyw here other than on the m attress w it h her and B.A w hil e theyst ay ed at appel lan t’ s h ome. d. Detectiv e Segura ’s Tes timony Det ect iv e Seg ura has w or ked for the Yuma Poli ce Dep artment for tw enty y ears w it h about 300 hou rs of train ing w or ki ng “ cr imes ag ain st chi ldren.” D etec ti v e S e gur a has 4
w orked in “[c]lose to if

not over a thou sand [child sexual a buse ] cases. ” Detect iv e Segura describe d the intervi ew proce ss w ith the ch ild victim and m ent ione d tha t during the cou rse of an i nv est ig ati on, h e tr ies to obtai n c or rob o ra ti v e ev ide nce— DN A ev ide nce, ac tual eyew itness a ccoun ts, or conf ronta tiona l pho ne calls—to supp ort the child v ictim’s out cry sta tement. D etec ti v e Seg ura des cr ibe d a c onfronta ti onal phone cal l as “a cal l w here the7

v ic t i m ma k e s a t e l e p h o n e c a l l t o t h e a l l e g e d p e rs o n a n d t h e n t h e y b a s i c a l l y g et t hem to admitto w h a th a p p e n e d

. ” H e s t r e s s e d t h a th e g i v e s t h e c h i l d v i c t i m e x p l i c i ti n s t r uct ion s
re g ardin g w hat to s a y w hen t hey are tal ki ng to the a ll eg ed per petrator

. He w or ked w it h B.A. to develop a them e for talking to app ellantabo ut th e incide nts. D e t e c t iv e Segura broug ht t o c our

t t he mic ro cas set te recorder thatB.A . had us ed to record her co nv ersat ion s
w ith ap pellan t. Detective Segura testif ied th at w hile spea king to B .A. at Am berly’ s Place on Aug ust25, 2005, she ag re ed to make a c onfronta ti onal ca ll to appel lan t. B.A. made ph one c all s t o appel lan t w hil e D etec ti v e Seg ura w as present , butno o ne
answ ered th ose cal ls

. Det ect iv e Seg ura the n al low ed B. A. t o take the mi crocas set te recorde r hom e to record calls herse lf . Detective Segura receiv ed a pho ne ca ll from B.A.’s mother a c oupl e of day s l ater i ndi cat ing thatthey

had re corded t hre e p h o n e c all s w it h app ellant . B .A. and h er m oth er re turne d the microcasse tte reco rder to Dete ctiv e Segura wh e n h e vis it e d t h e m la t e r t h e sa m e d a y. The Stat e the n offered to i ntroduce the recordin g s of the confront ati onal call s i nto
ev ide nce. Det ect iv e Seg ura tes ti fied that: ( 1) he h ad l is tened to t he ta pe; ( 2) no c hang es had bee n made t o the tape si nce itw as g iv en to hi m by B.A. and her mother ; and ( 3) the recording to be hea rd w as a copy he ha d ma de for the St ate f rom th e original g iv en to him by B. A. a nd her

mother

. Appel lan t made no obj ect ion s t o the i ntroduct ion of the recordings. e. The Recordi ngs The Stat e the n i ntroduce d the recordin g s of the tel ephone conv ersat ion s b etw een B.A. and app ellantinto evidence. T he recordings cont aine d the followi ng ex chan ges w hich
a re p e rt in e n tt o o u r r e vie w:8

[B.A .]: I k now

w hat y ou hav e been doi ng to me i n the ni g ht. I’ m not mad. I’ m not g oin g to tel l any [s ic ] any o n e o r a n ything , butI k n o w. [A p p e lla n t: ] Yea h , I ’m list e n in g. [B.A .]: And like [sic] touch me in t he priv ate part be cause I don’t like

it

. [Ap pellan t]: (Inau dible). [B.A .]: So I w ant y ou to tel l me y ou w on’ t do it

. Hel lo? [A p p e lla n t] : I’ m —I ’m list e n in g.

. . . . [B.A .]: Hey , dad , y ou k now w hat w e tal ked about? [Appel lan t]: Y eah. [B.A .]: I w ant y ou to l ik e apol og iz e. [Appel lan t]: Y eah, hum, y ou know , thi s is someth ing w e need to t alk about in person. [B.A .]: No, dad. I w ant y ou to apol og iz e. I w ant— becau se, d a d, I

re all y w ant y ou to apol og iz e on the p hone. N obody i s h ere. [Ap pellan t]: Yeah, I ap ologiz e (inaud ible). I apolo giz e for (inaud ible). [B.A .]: Lik e, promis e. I w ant y ou to promis e outl oud. [Ap pellan t]: I prom ise, I said it before (inau dible). [ B

. A

. ] : W h y d id yo u d o ita n ywa y? [Appel lan t]: W ell , [ B.A. ], w e c an ta lk aboutthi s l ater

on i n person. [B.A .]: Because I hav e been hav ing bad dreams b ecaus e I w atc hed

a mov ie. [Appel lan t]: Y eah? [B.A .]: And—y eah.9

[Appel lan t]: Y eah. W ell , t he th ing abouti t is ( ina udi ble ). W ell , l ik e I sai d,

it ’s so methi ng w e need to t alk i n person lat er

on ( in a u dib le) prob ably abou t a y ear f rom n ow (inaud ible).

. . . . [Appel lan t]: (I naudi ble ). Y eah, y ou k n o w, a bout w hat y ou w ere s ay ing

earlier, I know y ou want som e a n s w ers, nee d som e an sw ers but it ’s someth ing v er

y personal that I thi nk that, y o u kn ow (inaud ible).

. . . . [B .A .] : D ad , I do n’ t w an t to s ee y ou i f y ou ’ re g oi ng t o be t ou c hi ng my

pr iv ate a g ain

. [Appel lan t]: W hat h av e I tol d y ou ear li er , [ B.A. ]? [ B

. A

. ] : O h , I d o n ’tkn o w. [Ap pellan t]: (Inau dible) I said it’s over. It’s over. [B.A .]: Y ou shoul d hav e pla nned (i naudi ble ) and I w oul dn’ t be hav ing

to as k y ou all of t hese q uest ion s. It’ s n ot my fault ithappen ed. It’s y ours. [Appel lan t]: Y eah.

. . . . [B.A .]: No, da d. I’m just sa y ing I do n’t w antit to hap pen to any more

children beca use the n y ou are going to get caught, and I don’t w ant y ou i n j ail

. So I w ant y ou to sa y i t on the p hone. I w ant y ou to sa y

i t [ si c] I w il l nev er

do i t—I w il l nev er

mol estany

othe r chi ldr en o r me a g a i n
. S a y i t , o r I w i l l b e s o ma d a t y ou. Y ou don’ t w ant— [Appel lan t]: I’ v e al re ady tol d y ou. I s aid no, no, n o. [B.A .]: I w ant y ou to promis e. I w ant y ou to sa y i t. I w ant y ou to s ay I promis e I w on’ t do itag ain

. [Appel lan t]: I promis e i t w il l not h appen a g ain

.

. . . .10

[B .A .] : I me an , do y ou w an t to t el l mo m? [Appel lan t]: No. After t h e r e c o rd i n g s w e r e p u b l i s h e d t o t h e j u r y , a p p e l l a n t o bj e c t e d , c o n t e n d i n g t hat t he recordings w ere ne v er prope rly ente red into ev iden ce. How ever, the trial court de nied his obj ect ion

. Appel lan t rest ed his cas e w it hout cal li ng any w it ness es or

present ing any

ev ide nce. The ju ry su bseq uentl y

conv ic ted appel lan t on all nine counts contai ned i n the i ndi ctment

. On S eptember

10, 2007, the tr ial co urt s entenc ed hi m to for ty y ears’ i mpri sonmenti n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion for t he ag g ra vat e d se x ual
assau lt conviction. Appe llant also receiv ed tw ent y y ears’ conf inem entfor the ind ecen cy
w it h a c hil d c onv ic ti on. The sent ences w ere ordered to r un c oncur re ntl y . On S eptember 10, 2 007, appel lan t t imel y fil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal

. Al so, on S eptember 10, 2007, the t ri al
cour t c erti fied appe ll ant’ s r ig ht t o appea l. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW In a leg al suffici ency

rev iew , w e v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on to dete rmi ne w hether any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ; W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The tr ier of facti s t he sol e jud g e of t he facts, the credi bil ity of t he w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to t est imony

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Jacks on , 443 U. S. a t 318 -3 9; Beck

ham v. St a te , 29 S.W .3d 1 48, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. re f'd). W e do not reev alu ate t he w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce, w hether ci rc umstan ti al or

di re ct, nor

do w e subst it ute our ow n judg ment for that of the tr ier of fact.Sect i on 21. 11( c) oft he penal code def i nes “ sexual cont act ” as “ any t ouchi ng b y a per son, i ncl udi ng 5 t ouchi ng t hr ough cl ot hi ng, of t he a nus, br east , oranypar t of t he geni t al s of a chi l d” or“ any t ouchi ng o fany p a r t o fth e b o d y o fa c h ild , in c lu d in g t o u c h in g t h r o u g h c lo th in g w ith th e a n u s , b r e a s t, o r a n y p a r t o fth e g e n ita ls of a pe rso n” i f i nten de d t o “aro us e o r grat i fy t he se x ua l d e s i re o f a n y pe rso n.” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 11 Mo sley v. State , 141 S.W .3d 8 16, 821 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet. re f'd); Beck ham , 29 S. W .3d a t 15 1 . I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. In a le g al suffici ency

rev iew , each factneed not pointdirect ly and inde pendent ly

to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as long as the cumul ati v e forc e of al l the i ncr imi nati ng ci rc umstan ces i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he c onv ic ti on. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Bar nes v. State , 876 S.W .2d 3 16, 3 21 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ; Johns on v

. St ate , 871 S.W .2d 1 83, 1 86 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ; Alexander v. St ate , 740 S. W .2d 7 49, 7 58 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987))

. Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as directev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of an a cto r; ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alo ne c an be suffici ent to establ is h gui lt

. Guev ar a v. State , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). On a pp ea l , bo th c i r c um s ta nt i al a nd d i rec t ev i de nc e c as es a re ex am i ne d us i ng t he s am e sta ndard of rev iew

. Id. W e meas ure the su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce b y t h e elements of the o ff ense as defin ed by

the hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7); Adi v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. re f'd). "Su ch a c harg e w oul d ac curatel y se t out the law , w oul d be author iz ed by the indictm ent , and w ould n ot unn ecessa rily in crease t he Sta te's burd en o f proof .” Malik , 953 S.W .2d a t 240

. The el ements for indece ncy

w it h a chi ld are: (1 ) appel lan t i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

eng ag ed i n s ex ual co ntac t w it h a chi ld or caused the chi ld to eng ag e i n s ex ual cont act ; ( 2 ) t h e c h i l d w a s y o u n g e r t h a n s e v e n t e e n y e a rs o l d ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e c h i l d w a s not 521. 11( c) ( Ver non 2003)

. T he r equi si t e spe ci f i c i nt ent t o ar ouse or gr at i f y t he sexual desi r e of any per son m ay

b e i n fe rr e d fro m a d e fe n d a n t’ s c o n d u c t, h i s r e m a rk s , a n d a l l s u rr o u n d i n g c i rc u m s ta n c e s
. M c K e n zi e v . S ta te , 6 1 7 S .W .2 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . [ P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 1 ); s e e a ls o J im e n e z v . S ta te , No

. 0 4
- 0 6
- 0 0 8 4 0
- CR, 2007 T ex. App. LEX I S 5567, at * 11 ( T ex. A pp. –San A nt oni o Jul y 18, 2007, no pet

. )

. N o or al expr essi on o f i n te n t, n o r i s v i s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f s e x u a l a ro u s a l re q u i re d

. S e e M c K e n z ie , 6 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 2 1 6 ; s e e a ls o S o lis v . S ta te , N o. 13- 03- 00262
- C R , 200 6 T ex. App. LEX I S 6216, at * 5 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jul y 20, 200 6, no pe t

. ). 12 appel lan t’ s s pouse
. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (1 ). The el ements for a g g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t are appel lan t i ntent ion all y and know ing ly : (1 ) caus ed th e penet ra ti on of the
anus or se x ual org an of a c hil d by any means ; or

( 2) caus ed the s ex ual org an of a c hil d to cont actor

penet ra te ap pel lan t’ s mout h, an us, or se x ual org an. Id. § 22 .021( a) (1 )( B)

. In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine
w het her the evidence is so w eak that the jury 's v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anifestly unj ust

. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15. Af ter consid ering all of

the evidence in the record relate d to ap pellan t's suf f iciency cha llenge, w e com pare t he evidence w eighed b y the jury t h a tt e n d s t o p ro ve t h e e le m e n t a l fa c tin d is p u t e wit h t h e e vid e n c e t h a tt e n d s t o d is p ro ve it

. Santel

lan v. Sta te , 939 S.W .2d 155 , 164 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7) (en ban c). This Court
w ill notrev erse the ju ry 's verdict unless we can say w ith som e objective basis in the record that the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of t he ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. W ats on , 204 S. W .3d a t 415

. III . A N AL Y S IS By hi s s ole i ss ue on appeal , app ell ant c ontends that the ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial
w as leg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti ons. W e di sag re e. In arg uin g that the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent, appel lan t s tates that there w as no phy si cal ev ide nce of sex ual abuse, there w as no c or ro borati ng tes ti mony that the se incide nts actu ally o ccurred, and t he jury

w as mo v ed b y

emo tion; therefore, its v erdict13

is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of t he ev ide nce. Ap pel lan t furt her arg ues that the c onfronta ti onal tel ephone cal ls made by B.A . do not con ta in a n admiss ion from ap pe l l an t th ath e s ex ua l l y a s s au l te d B. A an d th att he pol i c e an d B. A. tr i ed to en trap h i m. App ellantalso question s the authe nticity and credibility of the reco rding present ed a t trial. W e be gin by

notin g tha t the t estim ony o f a child v ictim alon e is suf f icient to supp ort
a c onv ictio n f o r sex ual abus e. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.07( a) , ( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 5) ; see a lso Tear v. Sta te , 74 S.W .3d 555, 560 (Tex

. App.–D all as 2002, pet.
r e f’ d) ; Emp ty

v. St ate , 972 S.W .2d 1 94, 1 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1998, pet. re f’d) ; Ruiz v. State , 891 S .W .2d 3 02, 304 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 4, pe t. ref ’d); Kar nes v. State , 873 S.W .2d 9 2, 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, no pet .) (noti ng that a chi ld v ic ti m’s tes ti mony al one is suf f icient ev iden ce of pen etrat ion to supp ort a con v iction for agg rav ate d sexual assau lt); Ki m ber li n v . St ate , 877 S.W .2d 828 , 831 ( T ex. App.– Fort W orth 19 94, pet ref ’d). T here fore, be cause B.A. te stif ied as to bot h inciden ts of sex ual ab use, her testim ony w ould be enou g h to suppo rtappel lan t’ s c onv ic ti ons w it hout any co rroborati on. In an y ev ent, the e v ide nce adduc ed attr ial sa ti sfies the ele ments of e a ch o f the all eg ed c ri minal offenses
. B.A. tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t: ( 1) put his mouth on her v ag ina ; (2 ) put h is peni s i n her butt ; ( 3) put his fing ers i n her v ag ina ; and (4) put his mouth and fing ers o n her

breast s. B.A. als o testi fied that she w as fourteen y ears o ld at t he ti me she g av e her tes ti mony , thus esta bli shi ng that she w as under sev enteen y ears of age w hen t he inc ide nts oc cur re d

. I n addi ti on, B .A. sta ted t hat s he w as not a ppel lan t’ s s pouse
. Moreover, af

ter cond ucti n g several interv iew s w ith B.A . at he r hom e an d at Am berly’ s Pl ace, Detec ti v e Seg ura, a detec ti v e w ho had w or ked on approx imat ely 1,00 0 c hil d s ex ual abuse ca ses , a lso co ncl uded t hat B .A. had bee n s ex ual ly as saul ted. A.A . t est ified thatR ul e 10 03 o ft he T exas Rul es of Ev i dence aut hor i z es t he u se of copi es t o t he sa m e ext ent as 6 or i gi nal s unl ess on e qu est i ons a ut hent i ci t y ordem on s t rat es t hat i t woul d be unf ai r t o ad m i t t he d upl i cat es. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 10 03 ; s e e a ls o H o o dv . S ta te , 94 4 S

. W

. 2d 74 3, 74 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –A m ari l l o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ). H ow eve r, ap pe l l an t ’ s t ri al co un s el ne ver o b je c te d to t he ad m i s s i on of t he rec ord i ng s be fore t he y w ere 14 appel lan t had an a ir

co ndi ti oni ng uni t i n the w ind ow of his ro o m , whic h the Sta te arg ued at t ri al coul d hav e kept any one from hear ing w hat w as transpi ri ng i n appel lan t’ s b edroom on th e ni g hts i n q uest ion

. In the confro ntati onal phone c all s, appel lan t app ears t o apol og iz e and promis e to not s ex ual ly

abus e B. A. a g ain

. In fact , app ell ant s pec if ica llyst ates that“ [i ]t’ s o v er .” Thoug h th e c onfronta ti onal tel ephone cal ls do n ot c oncl usi v ely es tabl is h tha t app ell ant
sex ual ly abus ed B. A., they

do c or ro borate B .A.’ s t est imony and all ow

the jur y to make a n inferen ce as to why : (1) app ellantw ould apo logiz e for and prom ise notto sexually abu se B.A. ag ain ; (2 ) appel lan t w oul d sta te that “[ i] t’ s ov er ,” that it is his fault, and t hat i t w il l nev er happen ag ain ; and ( 3 ) appel lan t w anted B.A. to w aita y ear to dis cus s t he i nci dents w it h B.A. Se e Hooper

, 214 S.W .3d at 13, 15-16 (hol din g that the j ur y , as the tr ier

of fact, may d ra w re a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s f ro m t h e fa c t s a n d t h a tt h e re vie win g c o u rtm u s tgi ve deferenc e to suc h i nferen ce s). Itw as not i ncumbentupon the S tate to i ntroduce any doct or ’s repor

ts or ex aminat ion repor

ts by treati ng phy si ci ans, as su g g est ed by appel lan t, b e c a u s e ci rc u m s t a n t ia l e vid e n c e a lo n e m a y su p p o rta co n vic t io n a n d itis t h e cu m u la t ive force of the ev ide nce that g uid es our rev iew

. See id. at 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. Appel lan t al so all eg ed th at B .A. and t he pol ic e ent ra pped hi m, butthi s a rg ument ha s been i nadeq uatel y

br iefed on appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(h)

. W it h respect t o appel lan t’ s o bje cti ons to t he aut henti ci ty and c re d ib ili ty

of the recordin g s o f the confro ntati onal ca ll s off ered at tri al, w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t w aiv ed s uch obj ect ion s b y not rais ing them firs t w it h the tr ial co urt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ( as a prereq uis it e to 6p r e s e n te d to th e ju r y. 15

present ing a c omplai nt for appell ate rev iew , the record mustsh ow thatthe compl ain t w as firs t made to t he tr ial co urt)

. Base d on the foreg oin g , w e c oncl ude t hat t he j ur y w as rat ion all y

just ified i n findi ng g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubtand that the j ur y ’s v erdict i s n ot ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of t he ev ide nce. See W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5; Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. Therefore, the e v ide nce adduc ed attr ial is leg all y and factu all y su ff ic ien t to s uppor

t app ell ant’ s c onv ic ti ons. Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.